SUBSCRIBE TO NEW SCIENTIST

Life

Feeds

Home |Life |Science in Society | News

Mona Lisa's smile a mystery no more

If you have been puzzled by Mona Lisa's smile – how she's radiant one moment and serious the next instant – then your worries are over. It happens because our eyes are sending mixed signals to the brain about her smile.

Different cells in the retina transmit different categories of information or "channels" to the brain. These channels encode data about an object's size, clarity, brightness and location in the visual field.

"Sometimes one channel wins over the other, and you see the smile, sometimes others take over and you don't see the smile," says Luis Martinez Otero, a neuroscientist at Institute of Neuroscience in Alicante, Spain, who conducted the study along with Diego Alonso Pablos.

This isn't the first time scientists have deconstructed Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece. In 2000, Margaret Livingstone, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School with a side interest in art history, showed that Mona Lisa's smile is more apparent in peripheral visionMovie Camera than dead-centre, or foveal, vision. And in 2005, an American team suggested that random noise in the path from retina to visual cortex determines whether we see a smile or not.

Visual pathways

To get a fuller picture of the reasons behind Mona Lisa's vanishing smile, Martinez Otero and Alonso Pablos varied different aspects of the Mona Lisa that are processed by different visual channels, and then asked volunteers whether they saw a smile or not.

To start with, the duo asked volunteers to look at the painting in varying sizes from varying distances. When standing far away or when viewing a tiny reproduction of the portrait, the volunteers had trouble making out any facial expression.

When they moved in closer, or viewed a larger copy of the painting, they began to see the smile – and the larger the picture more likely they were to see it. This suggests that retinal cells that process dead-centre vision convey information about the smile just as well as the cells that contribute to peripheral vision.

Next, Martinez Otero's team compared how light affects our judgement of Mona Lisa's smile. Two kinds of cells determine the brightness of an object relative to its surroundings: "on-centre" cells, which are stimulated only when their centres are illuminated, and allow us to see a bright star in a dark night; and "off-centre" cells, which fired only when their centres are dark, and allow us to pick out words on a printed page.

Light and darkness

Martinez Otero jammed these channels by showing another set of volunteers either a black or white screen for 30 seconds followed by a shot of the Mona Lisa. Volunteers were more likely to see Mona Lisa's smile after they had been shown the dark screen. This would have muted the off-centre cells, leading Martinez Otero to conclude that it is these the on-centre cells that sense the Mona Lisa's smile.

Eye gaze also affects how volunteers see the smile, Martinez Otero says. His team used software to track where in the painting 20 volunteers gazed while they rated whether or not Mona Lisa's smile became more or less apparent.

With a minute to gaze at the painting, volunteers tended to focus on the left side of her mouth when judging her as smiling – further evidence that dead-centre vision picks out the smile. That can't be the whole story, though, because when volunteers had only a fraction of a second to discern her smile, their eyes tended to focus on her left cheek, hinting that peripheral vision plays a role, too.

So did Leonardo intend to sow so much confusion in the brains of viewers, not to mention scientists? Absolutely, Martinez Otero contends. "He wrote in one of his notebooks that he was trying to paint dynamic expressions because that's what he saw in the street."

The research was presented at the Society for Neuroscience's annual meeting in Chicago this week.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say
Comments 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

That's Why She's So Familiar!

Wed Oct 21 20:32:21 BST 2009 by Spotted Click

Like my ex-wife: smiling...but not.

That's Why She's So Familiar!

Wed Oct 21 22:30:57 BST 2009 by Lide
http://freetubetv.net

It's still not based on empirical evidence, just assumptions.

That's Why She's So Familiar!

Wed Oct 21 23:22:40 BST 2009 by Ben

Thats why its in the opinions section, duh!

That's Why She's So Familiar!

Thu Oct 22 09:53:07 BST 2009 by Tom Simonite, technology editor
http://www.newscientist.com

This story was accidentally posted to the opinion channel, it has now been reclassified. Thanks for reading.

Tom Simonite, technology editor

That's Why She's So Familiar!

Thu Oct 22 04:29:35 BST 2009 by iplop

Haha, best comment yet

This Is Idiocy

Wed Oct 21 20:51:56 BST 2009 by B. Nicholson

Wasting scientific resources on imbecility like this should be made a crime against humanity.

This Is Idiocy

Wed Oct 21 21:04:13 BST 2009 by Dr. Yoinkel Finkelblat
http://compassion.stanford.edu

Crime against humanity! what the hell are you talking about? distilling the mystery of vision has all sort of important downstream ramification. Learning how we as humans resolve visual ambiguity is not wasting resources by any stretch and is bound to have positive downstream impacts in design, human/machine interface, aiding the visually impaired. yeah, that has crime against humanity written all over it... Good job on that one.

This Is Idiocy

Wed Oct 21 22:54:33 BST 2009 by Joe Richard

Crimes against Humanity? Er yeah okay..



Not to embarrass you but this was just an experiment to try to find out why some people see things differently.

Crimes against humanity involves the slaughter and/or degradation of people. Darfur, that's crimes against humanity.

This was just a weird almost useless test that gained no more insight into whatever they trying to prove.

If they had come out with something like right-handed people tended to look at one side of the face over the other, that would be science.

This was just the same thing we already knew, what you see depends on how you look at it.

Thanks NS, but we knew this, yep swear to ya, we already knew that.

This astounding article is another reason why I cancelled my subscription

This Is Idiocy

Fri Oct 23 20:03:41 BST 2009 by mark

Ha Ha so true, it is much more simple then they are making out, a humans facial expression is created by variations of muscle tensions and flaccidity, he has painted a unreal smiling face without a smiling mouth how difficult is that to interpret!

This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.

This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.

This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.

Comments 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Is she smiling or serious? It turns out she's sending mixed signals (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Is she smiling or serious? It turns out she's sending mixed signals (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

ADVERTISEMENT

Brain-shrinking algae send sea lions off course

13:26 23 October 2009

MRI scans of sea lion brains have revealed how neurotoxins from algal red tides make them behave bizarrely

How green is your pet?

10:47 23 October 2009

It's time to wise up to the ecological pawprint of your furry friend – it may be doing more environmental damage than an SUV

The year's best wildlife photos

17:55 22 October 2009

The winners of the 2009 Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition have been announced. The best photographs from the competition are on show at the Natural History Museum, London, from tomorrow. Here are our favourites.

What's the point of a fake 500-day Mars mission?

14:47 22 October 2009

Volunteers are being asked to play astronauts on a simulated Mars mission – but it's not the only way to learn how long-haul spacefarers will cope

Latest news

Seven questions that keep physicists up at night

23:58 23 October 2009

From the nature of matter to that of reality itself, physicists are pondering the big questions at a 10-day physics festival in Canada

Obama says US in global race to develop clean energyMovie Camera

22:26 23 October 2009

At a speech at MIT on Friday, the president said that "the nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy"

Today on New Scientist: 23 October 2009

18:00 23 October 2009

Today's stories on newscientist.com, at a glance, including: your pet's eco pawprint, the first "skylight" on the moon, and how to see through walls

Augmented reality system lets you see through wallsMovie Camera

17:21 23 October 2009

If walls could be transparent, there would be fewer road accidents at blind corners. An augmented reality system could just make that come true

TWITTER

New Scientist is on Twitter

Get the latest from New Scientist: sign up to our Twitter feed

ADVERTISEMENT

Partners

We are partnered with Approved Index. Visit the site to get free quotes from website designers and a range of web, IT and marketing services in the UK.

Login for full access