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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrated information theory (IIT) and the testability of the silent neuron predictions.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.