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("MajajHong2015.V4-pls")
score = benchmark(my_model)

Model scores

Min Alignment Max Alignment

Rank

Model

Score

1
.695
2
.671
3
.639
4
.625
5
.594
6
.586
7
.558
8
.555
9
.549
10
.549
11
.546
12
.546
13
.546
14
.546
15
.546
16
.545
17
.545
18
.545
19
.544
20
.543
21
.542
22
.542
23
.541
24
.541
25
.541
26
.541
27
.541
28
.540
29
.540
30
.539
31
.539
32
.539
33
.539
34
.539
35
.539
36
.539
37
.539
38
.539
39
.539
40
.539
41
.539
42
.539
43
.539
44
.538
45
.538
46
.538
47
.538
48
.537
49
.537
50
.537
51
.537
52
.537
53
.537
54
.537
55
.536
56
.536
57
.536
58
.536
59
.536
60
.536
61
.536
62
.535
63
.535
64
.535
65
.535
66
.535
67
.534
68
.534
69
.534
70
.534
71
.534
72
.534
73
.534
74
.533
75
.533
76
.533
77
.533
78
.533
79
.532
80
.532
81
.532
82
.532
83
.531
84
.530
85
.530
86
.530
87
.530
88
.530
89
.530
90
.530
91
.530
92
.530
93
.530
94
.530
95
.529
96
.529
97
.529
98
.529
99
.529
100
.529
101
.529
102
.529
103
.528
104
.528
105
.528
106
.528
107
.528
108
.527
109
.527
110
.527
111
.527
112
.527
113
.527
114
.527
115
.527
116
.527
117
.527
118
.527
119
.526
120
.526
121
.526
122
.526
123
.526
124
.526
125
.526
126
.526
127
.526
128
.525
129
.525
130
.525
131
.525
132
.524
133
.524
134
.524
135
.524
136
.524
137
.523
138
.523
139
.523
140
.523
141
.523
142
.523
143
.523
144
.523
145
.523
146
.523
147
.523
148
.523
149
.522
150
.522
151
.522
152
.522
153
.522
154
.522
155
.522
156
.522
157
.522
158
.521
159
.521
160
.521
161
.521
162
.521
163
.521
164
.521
165
.521
166
.521
167
.521
168
.521
169
.521
170
.521
171
.520
172
.520
173
.520
174
.520
175
.520
176
.520
177
.520
178
.519
179
.519
180
.519
181
.519
182
.519
183
.519
184
.519
185
.519
186
.518
187
.518
188
.518
189
.518
190
.518
191
.518
192
.518
193
.518
194
.518
195
.518
196
.518
197
.517
198
.517
199
.517
200
.517
201
.517
202
.516
203
.516
204
.516
205
.516
206
.516
207
.516
208
.515
209
.515
210
.515
211
.515
212
.515
213
.515
214
.514
215
.514
216
.514
217
.514
218
.514
219
.514
220
.514
221
.514
222
.514
223
.514
224
.513
225
.513
226
.513
227
.513
228
.513
229
.513
230
.513
231
.513
232
.513
233
.512
234
.512
235
.512
236
.512
237
.512
238
.511
239
.511
240
.511
241
.511
242
.511
243
.511
244
.510
245
.510
246
.510
247
.510
248
.510
249
.510
250
.510
251
.510
252
.510
253
.510
254
.510
255
.509
256
.509
257
.509
258
.509
259
.509
260
.509
261
.509
262
.509
263
.509
264
.509
265
.508
266
.508
267
.508
268
.508
269
.508
270
.508
271
.507
272
.507
273
.507
274
.507
275
.507
276
.507
277
.507
278
.507
279
.506
280
.506
281
.506
282
.505
283
.505
284
.505
285
.505
286
.504
287
.504
288
.504
289
.504
290
.504
291
.503
292
.503
293
.503
294
.503
295
.503
296
.503
297
.502
298
.502
299
.502
300
.501
301
.501
302
.501
303
.501
304
.501
305
.500
306
.500
307
.500
308
.500
309
.500
310
.500
311
.500
312
.500
313
.499
314
.499
315
.499
316
.498
317
.498
318
.498
319
.498
320
.497
321
.497
322
.497
323
.497
324
.497
325
.496
326
.496
327
.496
328
.495
329
.495
330
.495
331
.494
332
.493
333
.493
334
.492
335
.492
336
.492
337
.492
338
.492
339
.492
340
.492
341
.492
342
.491
343
.491
344
.491
345
.491
346
.491
347
.491
348
.491
349
.491
350
.491
351
.490
352
.490
353
.490
354
.489
355
.488
356
.488
357
.487
358
.487
359
.487
360
.486
361
.485
362
.484
363
.484
364
.484
365
.483
366
.482
367
.482
368
.482
369
.482
370
.481
371
.481
372
.480
373
.480
374
.480
375
.479
376
.477
377
.477
378
.477
379
.476
380
.474
381
.474
382
.471
383
.471
384
.471
385
.471
386
.469
387
.468
388
.467
389
.464
390
.464
391
.464
392
.463
393
.462
394
.462
395
.462
396
.462
397
.461
398
.461
399
.460
400
.460
401
.460
402
.460
403
.460
404
.460
405
.460
406
.460
407
.460
408
.460
409
.460
410
.459
411
.458
412
.457
413
.456
414
.455
415
.451
416
.451
417
.450
418
.449
419
.448
420
.446
421
.445
422
.444
423
.443
424
.442
425
.439
426
.437
427
.436
428
.436
429
.435
430
.434
431
.434
432
.433
433
.430
434
.426
435
.425
436
.425
437
.423
438
.422
439
.420
440
.417
441
.414
442
.408
443
.406
444
.405
445
.404
446
.403
447
.398
448
.397
449
.393
450
.392
451
.391
452
.391
453
.390
454
.390
455
.389
456
.388
457
.388
458
.387
459
.387
460
.386
461
.386
462
.386
463
.385
464
.385
465
.385
466
.382
467
.381
468
.379
469
.377
470
.376
471
.375
472
.375
473
.369
474
.366
475
.342
476
.337
477
.336
478
.306
479
.303
480
.294
481
.283
482
.181
483
.165
484
.161
485
.155
486
.137
487
.088
488
.070
489
.065
490
.061
491
.060

Benchmark bibtex

@article {Majaj13402,
            author = {Majaj, Najib J. and Hong, Ha and Solomon, Ethan A. and DiCarlo, James J.},
            title = {Simple Learned Weighted Sums of Inferior Temporal Neuronal Firing Rates Accurately Predict Human Core Object Recognition Performance},
            volume = {35},
            number = {39},
            pages = {13402--13418},
            year = {2015},
            doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5181-14.2015},
            publisher = {Society for Neuroscience},
            abstract = {To go beyond qualitative models of the biological substrate of object recognition, we ask: can a single ventral stream neuronal linking hypothesis quantitatively account for core object recognition performance over a broad range of tasks? We measured human performance in 64 object recognition tests using thousands of challenging images that explore shape similarity and identity preserving object variation. We then used multielectrode arrays to measure neuronal population responses to those same images in visual areas V4 and inferior temporal (IT) cortex of monkeys and simulated V1 population responses. We tested leading candidate linking hypotheses and control hypotheses, each postulating how ventral stream neuronal responses underlie object recognition behavior. Specifically, for each hypothesis, we computed the predicted performance on the 64 tests and compared it with the measured pattern of human performance. All tested hypotheses based on low- and mid-level visually evoked activity (pixels, V1, and V4) were very poor predictors of the human behavioral pattern. However, simple learned weighted sums of distributed average IT firing rates exactly predicted the behavioral pattern. More elaborate linking hypotheses relying on IT trial-by-trial correlational structure, finer IT temporal codes, or ones that strictly respect the known spatial substructures of IT ({	extquotedblleft}face patches{	extquotedblright}) did not improve predictive power. Although these results do not reject those more elaborate hypotheses, they suggest a simple, sufficient quantitative model: each object recognition task is learned from the spatially distributed mean firing rates (100 ms) of \~{}60,000 IT neurons and is executed as a simple weighted sum of those firing rates.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We sought to go beyond qualitative models of visual object recognition and determine whether a single neuronal linking hypothesis can quantitatively account for core object recognition behavior. To achieve this, we designed a database of images for evaluating object recognition performance. We used multielectrode arrays to characterize hundreds of neurons in the visual ventral stream of nonhuman primates and measured the object recognition performance of \>100 human observers. Remarkably, we found that simple learned weighted sums of firing rates of neurons in monkey inferior temporal (IT) cortex accurately predicted human performance. Although previous work led us to expect that IT would outperform V4, we were surprised by the quantitative precision with which simple IT-based linking hypotheses accounted for human behavior.},
            issn = {0270-6474},
            URL = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402},
            eprint = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402.full.pdf},
            journal = {Journal of Neuroscience}}

Ceiling

0.90.

Note that scores are relative to this ceiling.

Data: MajajHong2015.V4

2560 stimuli recordings from 88 sites in V4

Metric: pls