The scholarly article that was written by Stoerig, Zontanou, and Cowey (2002) examines the issue of cortical blindness in four men and one monkey. More precisely, in the paper, Stoerig et al. (2002) “measure forced-choice localization of square-wave gratings as a function of contrast, and compare results from the patients’ absolutely and relatively blind fields” (p. 565). This study is innovative because its implications could be used by specialists to help such patients as “the very young or the severely aphasic” who cannot verbally tell whether they saw a stimulus or not (p. 565). The authors refer to the signal-detection paradigm to check the test subjects ability to determine a stimulus correctly. In addition to that, Stoerig et al. (2002) test two patients with the fields of relative blindness to learn whether stimuli reported by the participants of the experiment as barely visible are indeed targets or blank spaces. In the text of the paper, Stoerig et al. (2002) do not outline the research question and the hypothesis. Nonetheless, from the introductory part of the article, it could be inferred that the scholars conducted experiments with the aim to answer whether there is a correspondence between verbal and non-verbal responses to a stimulus. The experiment that is described below gives a positive answer to the previously mentioned question. In other words, the researchers discovered correspondence between non-verbal and verbal responses to a stimulus. The study was conducted with the participation of four people and one monkey. The experiment was held from 1999 to 2001 at the Institute of Experimental Psychology in Düsseldorf. The origin of the blindness of each participant is different. For example, the blindness of FS has “a retro-geniculate lesion of traumatic origin,” WF and HK have a vascular origin, and GY lost his sight at the age of 8 after a traffic accident (Stoerig et al., 2002, p. 566). Stoerig et al. (2002) use the monkey, Rosie, whose striate cortex on one side was entirely removed, as an example of someone who cannot verbally express whether he sees something or not. The article describes the course of the experiment in detail. Still, the main implications are that the patients were sitting in front of the monitor, their heads were fixed, and they were asked to touch the monitor with the index finger whenever they believed they saw a signal. Rosie was fixed in the chair, and the CCTV monitored the movement of her eyes. For the experiment, each patient had a healthy eye covered, while the eye with a defect in the temporal hemifield was used. First, the participants were asked to localize the stimulus grating at the position it was present, and in case of uncertainty, guess the correct position. Each answer was accompanied by feedback from the experimenters regarding the correctness or falsehood of the answer. After the participants reached the correct answers in 99% of cases, testing continued without feedback. The monkey received food as a reward for each correct answer during the experiment. Participants were then tested for their ability to detect when most of the stimuli appeared in the normal hemifield and less in the impaired field. At the same time, the participants were not anticipated about the possibility of the app