New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

"Mona Lisa Effect" Not True for Mona Lisa

The Mona Lisa effect is the illusion that the subject of a painting follows you with her gaze, despite where you stand. But da Vinci's famous painting doesn't have that quality. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Leonardo da Vinci'smost famous painting also has an optical illusion named after it: the Mona Lisa effect. The feeling that the subject of a painting follows you with her gaze. "You continuously feel like you're being looked at, despite moving to the left, to the right, perhaps even rotating the picture."

Sebastian Loth is a psychologist at the University of Bielefeld in Germany. And while he doesn't dispute that the illusion itself exists—you've probably also seen it in the Uncle Sam Army recruitment poster—he says there's a problem with the phenomenon's name.

"I can show you so many papers where people have literally started their introduction with 'We all know that Mona Lisa looks at you,' and so on and so forth, and then they'd go into their argument, whatever it is, but actually she, in this specific picture, doesn't look at you." 


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.


He and his colleague Gernot Horstman conducted a scientific investigation of this claim by sitting 24 volunteers in front of a computer screen, which displayed various magnifications of the Mona Lisa. They placed rulers at two distances between the subjects and the screen. Then asked the subjects to indicate where on the rulers the Mona Lisa's gaze intersected.

"And then you can compute a line, that's basically school mathematics here, and then you can figure out the angle. And what came out was 15 degrees to the right." So the Mona Lisa actually stares over the viewer's right shoulder, he says. Not straight out of the canvas—the key to creating her namesake illusion. The write-up is in the journal i-Perception. [Gernot Horstmann & Sebastian Loth, The Mona Lisa Illusion—Scientists See Her Looking at Them Though She Isn’t]

Loth says effects like these can have modern implications, for example, when building virtual assistants on computers, which might need to speak to—and make eye contact with—more than one person in a room. As for da Vinci's masterpiece, there's still another illusion that remains: the mysterious ambiguity of the Mona Lisa's smile.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe