↓ Skip to main content

Magically deceptive biological motion—the French Drop Sleight

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Magically deceptive biological motion—the French Drop Sleight
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00371
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flip Phillips, Michael B. Natter, Eric J. L. Egan

Abstract

Intentional deception, as is common in the performance of magic tricks, can provide valuable insight into the mechanisms of perception and action. Much of the recent investigations into this form of deception revolve around the attention of the observer. Here, we present experiments designed to investigate the contributions of the performer to the act of deception. An experienced magician and a naïve novice performed a classic sleight known as the French Drop. Video recordings of the performance were used to measure the quality of the deception-e.g., if a non-magician observer could discriminate instances where the sleight was performed (a deceptive performance) from those where it was not (a veridical performace). During the performance we recorded the trajectory of the hands and measured muscle activity via EMG to help understand the biomechanical mechanisms of this deception. We show that expertise plays a major role in the quality of the deception and that there are significant variations in the motion and muscular behaviors between successful and unsuccessful performances. Smooth, minimal movements with an exaggerated faux-transfer of muscular tension were characteristic of better deception. This finding is consistent with anecdotal reports and the magic performance literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Professor 5 11%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 39%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,805,221
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,690
of 34,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,929
of 280,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#71
of 472 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 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 34,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 280,050 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 472 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.