Abstract
Magicians’ speech flow, called “patter,” is considered part of their toolkit to direct audiences’ attention away from the secret method and towards the magical effect. Here, we set out to determine whether patter helps induce inattentional blindness during the Three-Card Monte. As a magic act, the Three-Card Monte features a performer that shuffles three cards and challenges spectators to track the red card, using sleight-of-hand to ensure they fail at this task. Participants viewed a recorded magic performance of the Three-Card Monte. Videos were accompanied by a congruent audio narrative, an incongruent audio narrative, or no sound. Crucially, the red card had a subtle but visible water stain mark: any participants who noticed the mark had a foolproof strategy to always know the red card’s location. We found no differences across conditions (congruent, incongruent, or silent) in how many participants noticed the mark, or how long it took them to notice it. Our results suggest that patter does not significantly misdirect audiences’ attention in the Three-Card Monte, and possibly neither does it in some other close-up magic routines. Despite this, magic patter may intensify the audience’s emotional engagement, strengthen rapport between spectators and performer, and increase the show’s entertainment value.
Data availability
Upon acceptance of this manuscript, the datasets generated and analyzed during the current study will be deposited in a publicly accessible repository (e.g., OSF) and assigned a DOI. All raw and processed data, together with analysis scripts and supporting materials, will be made available at that DOI. Prior to repository release, materials can be obtained from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
References
Alexander, R., Macknik, S. & Martinez-Conde, S. What the neuroscience and psychology of magic reveal about misinformation. Multidiscip. Digit. Publ. Inst. (MDPI) https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10040033 (2022).
Cui, J., Otero-Millan, J., Macknik, S. L., King, M. & Martinez-Conde, S. Social misdirection fails to enhance a magic illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5, 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00103 (2011).
Macknik, S. L., Martinez-Conde, S. & Blakeslee, S. Sleights of mind: what the neuroscience of magic reveals about our everyday deceptions (Henry Holt & Company, 2010).
Martinez-Conde, S. et al. The storytelling brain: how neuroscience stories help bridge the gap between research and society. J. Neurosci. 39(42), 8285–8290. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1180-19.2019 (2019).
Lamont, P. & Wiseman, R. Magic in theory (Hermetic Press, 1999).
Macknik, S. L. et al. Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9(11), 871–879 (2008).
Martinez-Conde, S. & Macknik, S. L. Mind tricks. Nature 448(7152), 414–414. https://doi.org/10.1038/448414a (2007).
Tamariz, J. La Vía Mágica: El método de las pistas falsas y la Vía Mágica (Editorial Frakson, 1988).
Barnhart, A. S., Costela, F. M., Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S. L. & Goldinger, S. D. Microsaccades reflect the dynamics of misdirected attention in magic. J. Eye Mov. Res. 12(6), 42 (2019).
Barnhart, A. S. & Goldinger, S. D. Blinded by magic: eye-movements reveal the misdirection of attention. Front. Psychol. 5, 1461 (2014).
Johansson, P., Hall, L. & Sikström, S. From change blindness to choice blindness. Psychologia 51(2), 142–155 (2008).
Kuhn, G. & Findlay, J. M. Misdirection, attention and awareness: inattentional blindness reveals temporal relationship between eye movements and visual awareness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63(1), 136–146 (2010).
Kuhn, G. & Tatler, B. W. Magic and fixation: now you don’t see it, now you do. Perception 34(9), 1155–1161 (2005).
Mack, A. & Rock, I. Inattentional blindness (MIT Press, 1998).
Macknik, S. & Martinez-Conde, S. Magic and the brain. Sci. American 299(6), 72–79 (2008).
Memmert, D. The gap between inattentional blindness and attentional misdirection. Conscious. Cogn. 19(4), 1097–1101 (2010).
Most, S. B. What’s “inattentional” about inattentional blindness?. Conscious. Cogn. 19(4), 1102–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.011 (2010).
Ortega, J., Montañes, P., Barnhart, A. & Kuhn, G. Differential effects of experience and information cues on metacognitive judgments about others’ change detection abilities. i-Perception 12(4), 20416695211039242. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211039242 (2021).
Rieiro, H., Martinez-Conde, S. & Macknik, S. L. Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller’s “Cups and Balls” magic trick. PeerJ 1, e19 (2013).
Simons, D. J. & Chabris, C. F. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9), 1059–1074 (1999).
Simons, D. J. & Levin, D. T. Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5, 644–649 (1998).
Simons, D. J. & Rensink, R. A. Change blindness: past, present, and future [Review]. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006 (2005).
Smith, T. J., Lamont, P. & Henderson, J. M. The penny drops: change blindness at fixation. Perception 41(4), 489–492 (2012).
Binet, A. La psychologie de la prestidigitation. Revue des Deux Mondes (1829–1971) 125(4), 903–922 (1894).
Thomas, C., Didierjean, A., Maquestiaux, F. & Gygax, P. Does magic offer a cryptozoology ground for psychology?. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19(2), 117–128 (2015).
Kuhn, G., Teszka, R., Tenaw, N. & Kingstone, A. Don’t be fooled! Attentional responses to social cues in a face-to-face and video magic trick reveals greater top-down control for overt than covert attention. Cognition 146, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.005 (2016).
Bezdek, M. A. & Gerrig, R. J. When narrative transportation narrows attention: changes in attentional focus during suspenseful film viewing. Media Psychol. 20(1), 60–89 (2017).
Bezdek, M. A. et al. Neural evidence that suspense narrows attentional focus. Neuroscience 303, 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.06.055 (2015).
Hinde, S. J., Smith, T. J. & Gilchrist, I. D. Does narrative drive dynamic attention to a prolonged stimulus?. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 3(1), 45 (2018).
Ho, C. & Spence, C. Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver’s visual attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 11(3), 157 (2005).
Ho, C. & Spence, C. Verbal interface design: do verbal directional cues automatically orient visual spatial attention?. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22(4), 733–748 (2006).
Lupyan, G. & Spivey, M. J. Making the invisible visible: verbal but not visual cues enhance visual detection. PLoS ONE 5(7), e11452 (2010).
Selcon, S., Taylor, R. & McKenna, F. Integrating multiple information sources: using redundancy in the design of warnings. Ergonomics 38(11), 2362–2370 (1995).
Barnhart, A. S., Ehlert, M. J., Goldinger, S. D. & Mackey, A. D. Cross-modal attentional entrainment: insights from magicians. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 80(5), 1240–1249 (2018).
Cohen, A.-L., Shavalian, E. & Rube, M. The power of the picture: how narrative film captures attention and disrupts goal pursuit. PLoS ONE 10(12), e0144493 (2015).
Pizzighello, S. & Bressan, P. Auditory attention causes visual inattentional blindness. Perception 37(6), 859–866 (2008).
Begey, M., Didierjean, A. & Thomas, C. The vanishing coin illusion: when sound congruence affects visual representation of motion. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 85(6), 1768–1776. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02776-4 (2023).
Dozio, N., Maggioni, E., Pittera, D., Gallace, A. & Obrist, M. May i smell your attention: exploration of smell and sound for visuospatial attention in virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 12, 671470 (2021).
Kern, L. & Niedeggen, M. Are auditory cues special? Evidence from cross-modal distractor-induced blindness. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 85(3), 889–904. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02540-0 (2023).
Salselas, I., Pereira, F. & Sousa, E. Inducing visual attention through audiovisual stimuli: can synchronous sound be a salient event?. Perception 53(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066231208127 (2024).
Santangelo, V., Ho, C. & Spence, C. Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 398–403 (2008).
Spence, C. Extending the study of visual attention to a multisensory world (Charles W. Eriksen Special Issue). Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83(2), 763–775 (2021).
Turoman, N., Tivadar, R. I., Retsa, C., Murray, M. M. & Matusz, P. J. Towards understanding how we pay attention in naturalistic visual search settings. Neuroimage 244, 118556 (2021).
Woods, K. J. P. et al. Rapid modulation in music supports attention in listeners with attentional difficulties. Commun. Biol. 7(1), 1376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-07026-3 (2024).
Noyce, A. L., Kwasa, J. A. C. & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. Defining attention from an auditory perspective. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 14(1), e1610. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1610 (2023).
Razzaghipour, A., Ashrafi, M. & Mohammadzadeh, A. A review of auditory attention: neural mechanisms, theories, and affective disorders. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 76(3), 2250–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04373-1 (2024).
Kuhn, G., Caffaratti, H. A., Teszka, R. & Rensink, R. A. A psychologically-based taxonomy of misdirection. Front. Psychol. 5, 1392 (2014).
Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A. & Maris, E. Two sides of the same coin: speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 21(2), 260–267 (2010).
Jackson, G. T., Allen, L. K. & McNamara, D. S. Common core TERA: Text ease and readability assessor. In Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction 49–68 (Routledge, 2016)
Vaden, K. I. Jr. et al. The cingulo-opercular network provides word-recognition benefit. J. Neurosci. 33(48), 18979–18986. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1417-13.2013 (2013).
Wong, P. C., Uppunda, A. K., Parrish, T. B. & Dhar, S. Cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 51(4), 1026–1041. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/075) (2008).
Sharpe, S. Conjurers psychological secrets (Hades Publications, 1988).
Chen, Y. et al. Task difficulty modulates the activity of specific neuronal populations in primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 11(8), 974–982. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2147 (2008).
Wild, C. J. et al. Effortful listening: the processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. J. Neurosci. 32(40), 14010–14021. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1528-12.2012 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We thank Molla Nawsher for technical and administrative support.
Funding
This work was supported by the New York State Empire Innovation Program and by the National Institutes of Health (Award R01EY031971 to SM-C and SLM; Award R01CA258021 to SM-C and SLM; Award R16GM159810 to RGA). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.N., R.G.A., S.L.M., and S.M-C. wrote the main manuscript text. A.N. wrote the scripts for the congruent and incongruent conditions (which were subsequently edited by A.N., R.G.A., S.L.M., and S.M-C.) and performed the recorded magic routine. A.N. and R.G.A. recruited participants and collected the experimental data. R.G.A. prepared Fig. 1 and A.V. conducted data analysis and prepared Figs. 2 and 3.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Transparency statement
We affirm full transparency in all reported experiments: all experimental conditions have been fully disclosed and described, no data were excluded unless explicitly stated, and all planned analyses are reported in full. In alignment with Open Science principles, this work contributes to a broader commitment to methodological transparency, reproducible research, and equitable knowledge sharing.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Video 1.
Supplementary Video 2.
Supplementary Video 3.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, A., Alexander, R.G., Venkatakrishnan, A. et al. Assessing the role of magician patter on deception in the Three-Card Monte. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43656-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43656-9
