The headline is inaccurate. If you do not have microsaccades you do not "go blind." If you stare at the exact same spot without flinching your eyes adapt the the image projected on the retina and the image fades away until you move your eyes again. Adaptation in vision is completely different from going blind and it is actually a good thing. For example, if something obstructs your vision permanantly your brain learns to ignore it (all of the senses work this way.) Adaptation and microsaccades check and balance each other.

Also, this is old news. I learned this when I was still in school so I don't understand how "new research" has uncovered this.

I understand why this is on HN (eyes are cool and one of the best-known complex biological computational systems, though we've got a ways to go), but I'm at a bit of a loss as to why this is news to the Telegraph. I was taught this twelve years ago in Psych 101. Literally, PSY101 at Michigan State, I'm not just using 101 as a metavariable meaning "low level course". What's my point? Whatever root study this was extracted from probably says something even more interesting, or at least more novel, and the reporter must have gotten side tracked by the introductory material.

A decent article, but artfully skirting the edge of the linkbait zone: "Going blind" is typically thought of as a permanent thing. Better to have said "going temporarily blind".