Previous studies showed that location of an aperture is perceived as shifted along the direction of target motion contained in the aperture (De Valois and De Valois, 1991; Kwon et al., 2015; Ramachandran and Anstis, 1990). This reflects a perceptual mis-localization error along the target motion direction that also influences saccade programming by causing saccade end-points to be shifted along the target motion (Kosovicheva et al., 2014). Consistent with previous studies, another earlier study in visually intact controls found the position of saccade end-points to be displaced along the direction of dot motion contained in a peripheral target aperture (Kwon et al., 2019). Thus, like the post-saccadic following response (PFR), saccade end-points are also influenced by pre-saccadic selection of target motion, providing another measure of the predictive influence of target motion. A previous study also found that saccade end-points provide a measure that correlates well with perception (Kosovicheva et al., 2014). Thus, the deviations of saccade end-points were analyzed to investigate if they were biased by the direction of motion in both the blind and intact fields of our CB participants, and whether restoration of motion perception in the blind field influenced these saccade parameters. For each saccade, the angle of the line from fixation to the saccade end-point relative to the line from fixation to the center of the target aperture was computed. Positive angular deviations were interpreted to reflect a bias along the target motion. The mean saccade angular deviations in 8 visually intact controls (from Kwon et al., 2019), and for motion targets presented in 11 CB patients’ intact and blind fields were computed as shown in the figure. Individual dots represent the mean saccade angular deviations for each participant. Error bars represent ± 2 SEM across subjects.The visually intact controls (from Kwon et al., 2019) showed a net positive saccade angular deviations that differed significantly from 0 (t7=11.53, p<0.001 – leftmost gray bar). This was also observed in CB patients, in intact portions of their visual fields (3.33°, CI95 = [3.32°, 3.34°], t10=6.0170, p<0.0001, BF > 100 – white bar). In fact, there were no significant differences between saccade end-point deviations between the two groups (t17=−0.7607, p=0.4573, BF = 0.4982). In the blind field of CB participants, saccade angular deviations were smaller than in their intact fields (t10=3.3586, p=0.0073, BF = 7.8454 – light gray bar), but unlike the PFRs, they were greater than 0 (1.12°, CI95 = [1.11°, 1.13°], t10=3.6538, p=0.044, BF = 11.7368), providing positive evidence of pre-saccadic motion integration within the blind field. Thus, occipital stroke does not abolish motion-induced perceptual shifts reflected by saccade targeting.