Sample stimuli

sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9

How to use

from brainscore_vision import load_benchmark
benchmark = load_benchmark("Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta")
score = benchmark(my_model)

Model scores

Min Alignment Max Alignment

Rank

Model

Score

1
.983
2
.974
3
.972
4
.957
5
.940
6
.939
7
.929
8
.929
9
.929
10
.899
11
.897
12
.889
13
.887
14
.874
15
.873
16
.867
17
.867
18
.865
19
.862
20
.858
21
.855
22
.854
23
.850
24
.844
25
.841
26
.824
27
.806
28
.803
29
.801
30
.799
31
.798
32
.793
33
.775
34
.770
35
.767
36
.767
37
.766
38
.766
39
.762
40
.761
41
.756
42
.754
43
.752
44
.741
45
.741
46
.731
47
.731
48
.730
49
.727
50
.726
51
.724
52
.724
53
.717
54
.715
55
.714
56
.713
57
.712
58
.698
59
.696
60
.692
61
.681
62
.680
63
.679
64
.671
65
.671
66
.666
67
.666
68
.662
69
.658
70
.658
71
.647
72
.645
73
.644
74
.641
75
.627
76
.623
77
.617
78
.608
79
.607
80
.599
81
.578
82
.576
83
.572
84
.569
85
.568
86
.568
87
.567
88
.558
89
.552
90
.545
91
.539
92
.536
93
.527
94
.523
95
.519
96
.503
97
.503
98
.496
99
.494
100
.487
101
.485
102
.485
103
.465
104
.464
105
.463
106
.463
107
.462
108
.457
109
.454
110
.453
111
.448
112
.448
113
.448
114
.446
115
.435
116
.429
117
.429
118
.427
119
.420
120
.419
121
.418
122
.412
123
.410
124
.404
125
.398
126
.395
127
.392
128
.378
129
.374
130
.372
131
.365
132
.365
133
.362
134
.351
135
.343
136
.339
137
.335
138
.335
139
.335
140
.334
141
.324
142
.314
143
.313
144
.310
145
.308
146
.305
147
.304
148
.301
149
.288
150
.286
151
.284
152
.282
153
.278
154
.276
155
.276
156
.270
157
.270
158
.257
159
.255
160
.232
161
.232
162
.223
163
.220
164
.220
165
.212
166
.204
167
.201
168
.192
169
.171
170
.160
171
.158
172
.156
173
.156
174
.155
175
.144
176
.142
177
.135
178
.134
179
.131
180
.119
181
.116
182
.111
183
.098
184
.096
185
.089
186
.088
187
.068
188
.055
189
.042
190
.038
191
.028
192
.028
193
.007
194
.006
195
.003
196
.002
197
.000
198
.000
199
.000
200
.000
201
.000
202
.000
203
.000
204
.000
205
.000
206
.000
207
.000
208
.000
209
.000
210
.000
211
.000
212
.000
213
.000
214
.000
215
.000
216
.000
217
.000
218
.000
219
.000
220
.000
221
.000
222
.000
223
.000
224
.000
225
.000
226
.000
227
.000
228
.000
229
.000
230
.000
231
.000
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336

Benchmark bibtex

@article{BAKER2022104913,
                title = {Deep learning models fail to capture the configural nature of human shape perception},
                journal = {iScience},
                volume = {25},
                number = {9},
                pages = {104913},
                year = {2022},
                issn = {2589-0042},
                doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104913},
                url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222011853},
                author = {Nicholas Baker and James H. Elder},
                keywords = {Biological sciences, Neuroscience, Sensory neuroscience},
                abstract = {Summary
                A hallmark of human object perception is sensitivity to the holistic configuration of the local shape features of an object. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) are currently the dominant models for object recognition processing in the visual cortex, but do they capture this configural sensitivity? To answer this question, we employed a dataset of animal silhouettes and created a variant of this dataset that disrupts the configuration of each object while preserving local features. While human performance was impacted by this manipulation, DCNN performance was not, indicating insensitivity to object configuration. Modifications to training and architecture to make networks more brain-like did not lead to configural processing, and none of the networks were able to accurately predict trial-by-trial human object judgements. We speculate that to match human configural sensitivity, networks must be trained to solve a broader range of object tasks beyond category recognition.}
        }

Ceiling

0.85.

Note that scores are relative to this ceiling.

Data: Baker2022frankenstein

Metric: accuracy_delta