Nature 373, 247 - 249 (19 January 1995); doi:10.1038/373247a0

Blindsight in monkeys

Alan Cowey^* & Petra Stoerig^†

^* Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK
^† Institute of Medical Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestrasse 31, 80336 Munich, Germany

BLINDSIGHT, the visually evoked voluntary responses of patients with striate cortical destruction that are demonstrated despite a phenomenal blindness, has attracted attention from neuroscientists and philosophers interested in problems of perceptual consciousness and its neuronal basis^1–3. It is assumed to be mediated by the numerous extra-geniculostriate cortical retinofugal pathways whose properties are studied primarily in monkeys⁴. Like patients with blindsight^4–7, monkeys with lesions of the primary visual cortex can learn to detect, localize and distinguish between visual stimuli presented within their visual field defects^4,8–11. Although the patients deny seeing the stimuli they can nevertheless respond to (by forced-choice guessing) in their phenomenally blind fields, it is not known whether the monkeys experience the same absence of phenomenal vision. To determine whether they too have blind-sight, or whether they actually see the stimuli in their field defects, monkeys who showed excellent detection in tasks where a visual stimulus was presented on every trial, albeit at different positions, were tested in a signal-detection task¹² in which half the trials were blank trials, with no visual stimulus. They classified the visual stimuli presented in the field defect as blank trials, demonstrating, like patients, blindsight rather than degraded real vision.

References

1.	Crick, F. & Koch, C. Semin. Neurosci. 2, 263−275 (1990).
2.	Nelkin, N. Phil. Sci. 60, 419−434 (1993). | Article |
3.	Stoerig, P. & Brandt, S. Theor. Med. 14, 117−135 (1993). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
4.	Cowey, A. & Stoerig, P. Trends Neurosci. 14, 140−145 (1991). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
5.	Weiskrantz, L. Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).
6.	Blythe, I. M., Kennard, C. & Ruddock, K. H. Brain 110, 887−905 (1987). | PubMed | ISI |
7.	Weiskrantz, L. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B239, 247−278 (1990). | ChemPort |
8.	Klüver, H. J. Psychol. 11, 23−45 (1941).
9.	Cowey, A. & Weiskrantz, L. Q. J. exp. Psychol. 15, 91−115 (1963).
10.	Mohler, C. W. & Wurtz, R. H. J. Neurophysiol. 40, 74−94 (1977). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
11.	Pasik, P. & Pasik, T. Contrs sens. Physiol. 7, 147−200 (1982).
12.	Swets, J. A. & Pickett, R. M. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems (Academic, New York, 1982).
13.	Stoerig, P. & Cowey, A. Brain 114, 1489−1512 (1991).
14.	Fendrich, R., Wessinger, C. M. & Gazzaniga, M. S. Science 258, 1489−1491 (1992). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
15.	Barbur, J. L., Ruddock, K. H. & Waterfield, V. A. Brain 103, 905−928 (1980). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
16.	Barbur, J. L., Watson, J. D. G., Frackowiak, R. S. J. & Zeki, S. Brain 116, 1293−1302 (1993). | PubMed | ISI |