SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Magic and cognition: a scoping review of empirical evidence on cognitive and neural processes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Magic, understood as a set of effects designed to produce experiences of impossibility, offers a distinctive methodological potential for cognitive science because it makes it possible to manipulate, with ecological validity, processes such as attention, perception, reasoning, and memory. Despite increasing research interest over the last two decades, the available evidence has not been systematically mapped across cognitive domains, methodological approaches, and the neural correlates underlying magic perception or processing. The aim of this scoping review was to map and synthesize the empirical evidence on the relationship between illusionism and human cognitive processes across four cognitive domains: attention and misdirection, visual perception, high-level cognition, and epistemic emotion and memory. Neural correlates of the magical experience were examined as a fifth synthesis category. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and APA PsycINFO, with no date restriction, and reported following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of the 1,633 records identified, 55 studies met the eligibility criteria. Findings reported in these studies were mapped and synthesized narratively. Results: The most consistent findings concerned the attentional domain, indicating that covert attention contributes substantially to misdirection across several experimental contexts, with convergent findings reported by multiple laboratories. With regard to high-level cognition, the reviewed evidence does not clearly support the idea that magicians possess privileged psychological knowledge. In epistemic emotion and memory, responses to physically impossible events are related to the early development of intuitive physical knowledge. At the neural level, the limited evidence available suggests that observing magical effects involves networks associated with conflict detection, predictive processing, and expectation violation, including frontal regions (DLPFC, ACC, IFG) and the caudate nucleus, providing a preliminary biological correlate to the cognitive phenomena described above. Discussion: Overall, the findings support the view that magic constitutes a valid and promising methodological tool for the study of human cognition, although the heterogeneity of the studies explored so far and the geographical concentration of the research limit the generalizability of the conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.