The Ups and Downs of an Impossible Staircase

A 3-D reimagining of a classic illusion reveals new depths

In Schröder’s Stairs, the A wall appears closest to you, but if you flip the image upside down, the B wall will seem closest instead.

Kokichi Sugihara

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Relativity, a lithograph print by the Dutch artist M.C. Escher, portrays a world with three orthogonal sources of gravity, in which people climb and descend stairwells that seem to go uphill both ways. The disconcerting artwork is based on Schröder’s Stairs, a two-dimensional ambiguous image named after its eponymous creator. Though Escher popularized and expanded on Schröder’s concept, he kept it on a bidimensional plane. But can Schröder’s Stairs exist in 3D space?

A 2013 YouTube video created by Michael Lacanilao, then a film and animation graduate student at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York, featured a “real life Escherian Stairwell” at the RIT. Alas, it was a clever hoax. “Quite obviously no physics-defying ‘Escherian Stairwell’ exists in the real world,” explains the fact-checking website Snopes. “The video was a bit of trickery created through the use of deceptive camera angles, careful editing, and digital effects.”

Whereas a true instantiation of an “Escherian Stairwell” remains out of reach, a new illusion by mathematician Kokichi Sugihara of Meiji University in Japan, winner of the 2020 Best Illusion of the Year Contest, might have come as close to it as physically possible in our reality.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Sugihara’s “3D Schröder’s Staircase” shows that we interpret 3D objects as a function of our perspective. The images above showcase the same staircase from two different but simultaneous perspectives (by means of a mirror). As a result, we see a traffic cone at the top of the stairs in one perspective, but that cones appears to be at the bottom of the stairs in the second perspective. In reality, the stairs are as flat as a pool table, but shaped just so, with mathematical precision, so that the same drawn-on line intersections appear to be concave from one viewpoint but convex in its mirror-image. Thus the “stairs” go down from one perspective and up from the other.

The perceptual dissonance may have to do with our brain’s predilection for rectangular shapes “among infinitely many possible interpretations,” says Sugihara. “The brain usually tries to interpret [a planar-face object] as an object with as many rectangles as possible, which in this case is a staircase.”   

Sugihara’s version brings this classic 2D illusion into 3D space. Notice how the red cone switches from the top step to the bottom one in the mirror image. In reality, the 3D object is based on a flat drawing of stairs supported by angled-polygon legs. The perceptual result is an ascending staircase from a given perspective and a descending staircase from a different perspective. Credit: Kokichi Sugihara

Stephen Macknik is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. Along with Susana Martinez-Conde and Sandra Blakeslee, he is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind. He is also author of Champions of Illusion, along with Susana Martinez-Conde. Follow Macknik on Twitter @stephen_macknik

More by Stephen Macknik

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde
SA Mind Vol 32 Issue 3This article was published with the title “The Ups and Downs of An Impossible Staircase” in SA Mind Vol. 32 No. 3 (), p. 37
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0521-37

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe