↓ Skip to main content

Social Misdirection Fails to Enhance a Magic Illusion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social Misdirection Fails to Enhance a Magic Illusion
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Cui, Jorge Otero-Millan, Stephen L. Macknik, Mac King, Susana Martinez-Conde

Abstract

Visual, multisensory and cognitive illusions in magic performances provide new windows into the psychological and neural principles of perception, attention, and cognition. We investigated a magic effect consisting of a coin "vanish" (i.e., the perceptual disappearance of a coin after a simulated toss from hand to hand). Previous research has shown that magicians can use joint attention cues such as their own gaze direction to strengthen the observers' perception of magic. Here we presented naïve observers with videos including real and simulated coin tosses to determine if joint attention might enhance the illusory perception of simulated coin tosses. The observers' eye positions were measured, and their perceptual responses simultaneously recorded via button press. To control for the magician's use of joint attention cues, we occluded his head in half of the trials. We found that subjects did not direct their gaze at the magician's face at the time of the coin toss, whether the face was visible or occluded, and that the presence of the magician's face did not enhance the illusion. Thus, our results show that joint attention is not necessary for the perception of this effect. We conclude that social misdirection is redundant and possibly detracting to this very robust sleight-of-hand illusion. We further determined that subjects required multiple trials to effectively distinguish real from simulated tosses; thus the illusion was resilient to repeated viewing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 87 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Linguistics 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 12 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2013.
All research outputs
#1,706,358
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#844
of 7,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,835
of 180,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#16
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.