Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

The curious influence of timing on the magical experience evoked by conjuring tricks involving false transfer: decay of amodal object permanence?

Auteurs: Tessa Beth, Vebjørn Ekroll

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2015

Abstract

In magic tricks involving false transfer, the conjurer typically creates the illusion of transferring a coin from one hand into the other, which is then closed into a fist, while in reality the coin is kept hidden in the first hand. The magical experience occurs when the closed fist of the second hand is opened and shown to be empty. According to professional magicians, the magical experience evoked by this kind of tricks becomes noticeably weaker when the time interval between the false transfer and the opening of the fist increases. This observation is surprising, given that neither the length of this interval nor any obvious factors associated with it can be expected to change the spectators’ intellectual conviction regarding the true location of the coin. We performed a controlled psychological experiment and obtained results corroborating these informal observations. Increasing the temporal interval from 1 to 32 s led to an average reduction of the strength of the magical experience of 38 %. We discuss potential explanations of this curious phenomenon in terms of object persistence, object files and temporal amodal completion.

volgende artikel Attentional capture by completely task-irrelevant faces

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Baker, C., Keysers, C., Jellema, T., Wicker, B., & Perrett, D. (2001). Neuronal representation of disappearing and hidden objects in temporal cortex of the macaque. Experimental Brain Research, 140(3), 375–381.PubMedCrossRef

Barnhart, A. (2010). The exploitation of Gestalt principles by magicians. Perception, 39, 1286–1289.PubMedCrossRef

Bloom, P. (2010). How pleasure works: The new science of why we like what we like. Random House.

Burke, L. (1952). On the tunnel effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(3), 121–138.CrossRef

Cui, J., Otero-Millan, J., Macknik, S. L., King, M., & Martinez-Conde, S. (2011). Social misdirection fails to enhance a magic illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 103. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ekroll, V., Sayim, B., & Wagemans, J. (2013). Against better knowledge: the magical force of amodal volume completion. i-Perception, 4(8), 511–515.

Ekroll, V., Sayim, B., & Wagemans, J. (submitted). Looking behind the scenes: the role of amodal perception in magic. Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Gendler, T. S. (2008a). Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 634–663.

Gendler, T. S. (2008b). Alief in action (and reaction). Mind and Language, 23(5), 552–585.CrossRef

Gerbino, W., & Zabai, C. (2003). The joint. Acta Psychologica, 114(3), 331–353.PubMedCrossRef

Gregory, R. L. (1986). Odd perceptions. London: Methuen.

Hazenberg, S. J., Jongsma, M. L., Koning, A., & van Lier, R. (2013). Differential familiarity effects in amodal completion: support from behavioral and electrophysiological measurements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 669–684. doi:10.1037/a0034689.PubMed

Himber, R. (1982). Coin vanish. Apocalypse, 5(9), 682.

Hulme, O. J., & Zeki, S. (2007). The sightless view: neural correlates of occluded objects. Cerebral Cortex, 17(5), 1197–1205.PubMedCrossRef

Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.PubMedCrossRef

Kanizsa, G. (1970). Amodale Ergänzung und „Erwartungsfehler“ des Gestaltpsychologen (Amodal completion and the Gestalt psychologist’s “expectation error“). Psychologische Forschung, 33(4), 325–344.PubMedCrossRef

Kanizsa, G. (1985). Seeing and thinking. Acta Psychologica, 59(1), 23–33.PubMedCrossRef

Kanizsa, G. (1987). Quasi-perceptual margins in homogeneously stimulated fields. In S. Petry & G. E. Meyer (Eds.). The perception of illusory contours (pp. 40–49). New York: Springer.

Kanizsa, G., & Gerbino, W. (1982). Amodal completion: seeing or thinking. In J. Beck (Ed.): Organization and representation in perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1991). A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 141–221.PubMedCrossRef

Koenderink, J. J. (2012). Experimental Phenomenology: Art and Science. Utrecht: De Clootcrans Press. Available: http://www.gestaltrevision.be/pdfs/koenderink/ArtAndScience.pdf.

Kuhn, G., Amlani, A. A., & Rensink, R. A. (2008). Towards a science of magic. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(9), 349–354.PubMedCrossRef

Kuhn, G., & Land, M. F. (2006). There’s more to magic than meets the eye. Current Biology, 16(22), R950–R951.PubMedCrossRef

Kuhn, G., & Martinez, L.M. (2012). Misdirection—past, present, and the future. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00172.

Lamont, P. (2013). Extraordinary beliefs: a historical approach to a psychological problem. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRef

Lamont, P., Henderson, J. M., & Smith, T. J. (2010). Where science and magic meet: the illusion of a “science of magic”. Review of General Psychology, 14(1), 16–21. doi:10.1037/a0017157.CrossRef

Lamont, P., & Wiseman, R. R. (2005). Magic in theory: an introduction to the theoretical and psychological elements of conjuring . Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.

Levin, D. (2002). Change blindness blindness: as visual metacognition. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(5–6), 5–6.

Macknik, S. L., King, M., Randi, J., & Robbins, A. (2008). Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(11), 871–879.PubMedCrossRef

Mayer, B., Merckelbach, H., & Muris, P. (2000). Self-reported automaticity and irrationality in spider phobia. Psychological Reports, 87(2), 395–405.PubMedCrossRef

McKay, R. T., & Dennett, D. C. (2009). The evolution of misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 493–561.PubMedCrossRef

Michotte, A. (1950). A propos de la permanence phénoménale faits et theories. Acta Psychologica, 7, 298–322.CrossRef

Nanay, B. (2009). Four theories of amodal perception. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2007) (pp. 1331–1336).

Noles, N. S., Scholl, B. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2005). The persistence of object file representations. Perception and Psychophysics, 67(2), 324–334.PubMedCrossRef

Ortiz, D. (1994). Strong magic: creative showmanship for the close-up magician. USA: Ortiz Publications.

Parris, B. A., Kuhn, G., Mizon, G. A., Benattayallah, A., & Hodgson, T. L. (2009). Imaging the impossible: an fMRI study of impossible causal relationships in magic tricks. Neuroimage, 45(3), 1033–1039. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.036.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Piaget, J. (2007). The child’s conception of the world. Eastbourne: CPI Anthony Rowe.

Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341–365.PubMed

Rensink, R. A. (2000). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing. Vision Research, 40(10), 1469–1487.PubMedCrossRef

Rensink, R. A. (2010). Seeing seeing. Psyche, 16(1), 68–78.

Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703.CrossRef

Scherzer, T. R., & Ekroll, V. (2009). Intermittent occlusion enhances the smoothness of sampled motion. Journal of Vision, 9(10):16, 1–18.

Scholl, B. J. (2007). Object persistence in philosophy and psychology. Mind and Language, 22(5), 563–591.CrossRef

Scholl, B. J., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Tracking multiple items through occlusion: clues to visual objecthood. Cognitive Psychology, 38(2), 259–290.PubMedCrossRef

Strickland, F. C. (1956). The technique of acting. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triplett, N. (1900). The psychology of conjuring deceptions. The American Journal of Psychology, 11(4), 439–510.CrossRef

Tse, P. U. (1999). Volume completion. Cognitive Psychology, 39(1), 37–68.PubMedCrossRef

van Lier, R. (1999). Investigating global effects in visual occlusion: from a partly occluded square to the back of a tree-trunk. Acta Psychologica, 102(2), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef

van Lier, R. J., van der Helm, P. A., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1994). Integrating global and local aspects of visual perception. Perception, 23, 883–903.PubMedCrossRef

van Lier, R., & Wagemans, J. (1999). From images to objects: global and local completions of self-occluded parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1721–1741.

Vrins, S., de Wit, T. C., & van Lier, R. (2009). Bricks, butter, and slices of cucumber: investigating semantic influences in amodal completion. Perception, 38(1), 17–29.PubMedCrossRef

Michotte, A., Thinès, G., & Crabbé, G. (1964). Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives (Amodal completions of perceptual structures). Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Studia Psychologica.

Titel: The curious influence of timing on the magical experience evoked by conjuring tricks involving false transfer: decay of amodal object permanence?
Auteurs: Tessa Beth
Vebjørn Ekroll
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0584-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2015

Judgement bias in predicting the success of one’s own basketball free throws but not those of others

Attentional capture by completely task-irrelevant faces

What we think we learn from watching others: the moderating role of ability on perceptions of learning from observation

Motor contagion: the contribution of trajectory and end-points

Contextual control over selective attention: evidence from a two-target method

Age-related effects on spatial memory across viewpoint changes relative to different reference frames