Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41610113›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Protocol for investigating the warping of spatial experience across the blind spot to contrast predictions of the Integrated Information Theory and Predictive Processing accounts of consciousness.

Clement Abbatecola, Bernard Marius 't Hart, Belén M Montabes de la Cruz, Lucy S Petro, Cyriel M A Pennartz, Giulio Tononi, Karl J Friston, Jakob Hohwy, Umberto Olcese, Melanie Boly and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Clement AbbatecolaCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Bernard Marius 't HartCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-3769
Belén M Montabes de la CruzCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Lucy S PetroCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Cyriel M A PennartzSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Giulio TononiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Karl J FristonWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-8909
Jakob HohwyMonash Centre for Consciousness and Contemplative Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Umberto OlceseSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Melanie BolyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Andrew M HaunDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Srimant P TripathySchool of Optometry & Visual Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Patrick CavanaghCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lars F MuckliCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0143-4324
TWCF-INTREPID consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigate the subjective experience of space around the visual blind spot area, the cortical representation of which is missing feedforward connectivity from one eye. We performed these experiments as part of an adversarial collaboration to test contrasting theories of consciousness; Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Predictive Processing Active Inference (AI), and Predictive Processing Neurorepresentationalism (NREP) accounts. According to the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, non-activatable retinotopic cortical regions, such as the blind spot region for the ipsilateral eye, create a different cause-effect structure and therefore should contribute differently to the perceived quality of space of activatable retinotopic regions. The two Predictive Processing accounts, in contrast, posit that internal models will accommodate structural deviations around the blind spot based on the available sensory evidence (particulars of this accommodation differ between the two accounts). We present a series of paradigms in which participants evaluate distances and areas that either include the blind spot or not (without stimulating it directly), as well as illusory motion that is either adjacent to the blind spot or not. We model psychometric functions relating perceived and objective space. These models vary in terms of bias and precision according to the experimental conditions (blind spot involved vs. not involved, ipsilateral vs. contralateral eye), making it possible to quantify the potential disruption of subjective spatial extendedness induced by the blind spot. We present simulated results for each experiment corresponding to the predictions of each account and conclude by discussing challenges and plans for dissemination.

Indexed as

ConsciousnessInformation TheorySpace PerceptionVisual CortexVisual FieldsHumansPhotic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID41610113
PMCPMC12854434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.