Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable

In their quest for creating magical experiences, magicians rely on a host of psychological factors. Here, we compare tricks based on attentional misdirection with tricks based on amodal completion. Based on the notion that amodal completion is a cognitively impenetrable perceptual phenomenon, we pre...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vebjørn Ekroll, Evy De Bruyckere, Lotte Vanwezemael, Johan Wagemans
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2018-12-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518816711
id doaj-10a23635026b48e5813537c975118f14
record_format Article
spelling doaj-10a23635026b48e5813537c975118f142020-11-25T03:16:58ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952018-12-01910.1177/2041669518816711Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively ImpenetrableVebjørn EkrollEvy De BruyckereLotte VanwezemaelJohan WagemansIn their quest for creating magical experiences, magicians rely on a host of psychological factors. Here, we compare tricks based on attentional misdirection with tricks based on amodal completion. Based on the notion that amodal completion is a cognitively impenetrable perceptual phenomenon, we predicted that the tricks based on this perceptual effect should—to a much larger extent than tricks based on attentional misdirection—retain their deceptive power when the tricks are repeated. The results of an experiment with four magic tricks involving attentional misdirection and four magic tricks based on amodal completion lend strong support to this prediction. Asking subjects to try to figure out the secret behind these tricks after one, two, or three presentations of each trick, we found that the observed solution rates for tricks based on attentional misdirection increased much more with repeated viewing than those for tricks based on amodal completion, which remained very low throughout. Thus, the results lend further support to the idea that amodal completion is based on cognitively impenetrable perceptual mechanisms.https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518816711
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vebjørn Ekroll
Evy De Bruyckere
Lotte Vanwezemael
Johan Wagemans
spellingShingle Vebjørn Ekroll
Evy De Bruyckere
Lotte Vanwezemael
Johan Wagemans
Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
i-Perception
author_facet Vebjørn Ekroll
Evy De Bruyckere
Lotte Vanwezemael
Johan Wagemans
author_sort Vebjørn Ekroll
title Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
title_short Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
title_full Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
title_fullStr Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
title_full_unstemmed Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
title_sort never repeat the same trick twice—unless it is cognitively impenetrable
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2018-12-01
description In their quest for creating magical experiences, magicians rely on a host of psychological factors. Here, we compare tricks based on attentional misdirection with tricks based on amodal completion. Based on the notion that amodal completion is a cognitively impenetrable perceptual phenomenon, we predicted that the tricks based on this perceptual effect should—to a much larger extent than tricks based on attentional misdirection—retain their deceptive power when the tricks are repeated. The results of an experiment with four magic tricks involving attentional misdirection and four magic tricks based on amodal completion lend strong support to this prediction. Asking subjects to try to figure out the secret behind these tricks after one, two, or three presentations of each trick, we found that the observed solution rates for tricks based on attentional misdirection increased much more with repeated viewing than those for tricks based on amodal completion, which remained very low throughout. Thus, the results lend further support to the idea that amodal completion is based on cognitively impenetrable perceptual mechanisms.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518816711
work_keys_str_mv AT vebjørnekroll neverrepeatthesametricktwiceunlessitiscognitivelyimpenetrable
AT evydebruyckere neverrepeatthesametricktwiceunlessitiscognitivelyimpenetrable
AT lottevanwezemael neverrepeatthesametricktwiceunlessitiscognitivelyimpenetrable
AT johanwagemans neverrepeatthesametricktwiceunlessitiscognitivelyimpenetrable
_version_ 1724633925700026368