↓ Skip to main content

Blinded by magic: eye-movements reveal the misdirection of attention

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
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
Blinded by magic: eye-movements reveal the misdirection of attention
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony S. Barnhart, Stephen D. Goldinger

Abstract

Recent studies (e.g., Kuhn and Tatler, 2005) have suggested that magic tricks can provide a powerful and compelling domain for the study of attention and perception. In particular, many stage illusions involve attentional misdirection, guiding the observer's gaze to a salient object or event, while another critical action, such as sleight of hand, is taking place. Even if the critical action takes place in full view, people typically fail to see it due to inattentional blindness (IB). In an eye-tracking experiment, participants watched videos of a new magic trick, wherein a coin placed beneath a napkin disappears, reappearing under a different napkin. Appropriately deployed attention would allow participants to detect the "secret" event that underlies the illusion (a moving coin), as it happens in full view and is visible for approximately 550 ms. Nevertheless, we observed high rates of IB. Unlike prior research, eye-movements during the critical event showed different patterns for participants, depending upon whether they saw the moving coin. The results also showed that when participants watched several "practice" videos without any moving coin, they became far more likely to detect the coin in the critical trial. Taken together, the findings are consistent with perceptual load theory (Lavie and Tsal, 1994).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 4%
Researcher 8 4%
Student > Master 7 3%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 156 74%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 155 73%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,031,907
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,846
of 30,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,573
of 332,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#135
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 332,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.