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
.588
7
.586
8
.558
9
.555
10
.549
11
.549
12
.546
13
.546
14
.546
15
.546
16
.546
17
.545
18
.544
19
.543
20
.542
21
.541
22
.541
23
.541
24
.541
25
.540
26
.540
27
.539
28
.539
29
.539
30
.539
31
.539
32
.539
33
.539
34
.539
35
.539
36
.539
37
.539
38
.539
39
.539
40
.539
41
.538
42
.538
43
.538
44
.538
45
.537
46
.537
47
.537
48
.537
49
.537
50
.537
51
.536
52
.536
53
.536
54
.536
55
.536
56
.536
57
.536
58
.535
59
.535
60
.535
61
.535
62
.535
63
.534
64
.534
65
.534
66
.534
67
.534
68
.534
69
.534
70
.534
71
.533
72
.533
73
.533
74
.533
75
.532
76
.532
77
.532
78
.532
79
.530
80
.530
81
.530
82
.530
83
.530
84
.530
85
.530
86
.530
87
.530
88
.530
89
.530
90
.530
91
.529
92
.529
93
.529
94
.529
95
.529
96
.529
97
.529
98
.529
99
.529
100
.529
101
.529
102
.529
103
.529
104
.528
105
.528
106
.528
107
.528
108
.528
109
.527
110
.527
111
.527
112
.527
113
.527
114
.527
115
.527
116
.527
117
.527
118
.527
119
.527
120
.526
121
.526
122
.526
123
.526
124
.526
125
.526
126
.526
127
.526
128
.526
129
.525
130
.525
131
.525
132
.525
133
.524
134
.524
135
.524
136
.524
137
.524
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
.522
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
.521
172
.521
173
.520
174
.520
175
.520
176
.520
177
.520
178
.520
179
.520
180
.519
181
.519
182
.519
183
.519
184
.519
185
.519
186
.519
187
.519
188
.519
189
.518
190
.518
191
.518
192
.518
193
.518
194
.518
195
.518
196
.518
197
.518
198
.518
199
.518
200
.517
201
.517
202
.517
203
.517
204
.517
205
.517
206
.516
207
.516
208
.516
209
.516
210
.516
211
.516
212
.515
213
.515
214
.515
215
.515
216
.515
217
.515
218
.514
219
.514
220
.514
221
.514
222
.514
223
.514
224
.514
225
.514
226
.514
227
.514
228
.513
229
.513
230
.513
231
.513
232
.513
233
.513
234
.513
235
.513
236
.513
237
.512
238
.512
239
.512
240
.512
241
.512
242
.512
243
.511
244
.511
245
.511
246
.511
247
.511
248
.511
249
.510
250
.510
251
.510
252
.510
253
.510
254
.510
255
.510
256
.510
257
.510
258
.510
259
.510
260
.509
261
.509
262
.509
263
.509
264
.509
265
.509
266
.509
267
.509
268
.509
269
.509
270
.508
271
.508
272
.508
273
.508
274
.508
275
.508
276
.508
277
.507
278
.507
279
.507
280
.507
281
.507
282
.507
283
.507
284
.507
285
.506
286
.506
287
.506
288
.505
289
.505
290
.505
291
.505
292
.504
293
.504
294
.504
295
.504
296
.504
297
.503
298
.503
299
.503
300
.503
301
.503
302
.503
303
.502
304
.502
305
.502
306
.501
307
.501
308
.501
309
.501
310
.501
311
.500
312
.500
313
.500
314
.500
315
.500
316
.500
317
.500
318
.500
319
.499
320
.499
321
.499
322
.499
323
.498
324
.498
325
.498
326
.498
327
.498
328
.497
329
.497
330
.497
331
.497
332
.497
333
.496
334
.496
335
.496
336
.496
337
.495
338
.495
339
.495
340
.495
341
.494
342
.493
343
.493
344
.492
345
.492
346
.492
347
.492
348
.492
349
.492
350
.492
351
.492
352
.491
353
.491
354
.491
355
.491
356
.491
357
.491
358
.491
359
.491
360
.491
361
.491
362
.491
363
.491
364
.490
365
.490
366
.490
367
.489
368
.489
369
.488
370
.488
371
.488
372
.488
373
.487
374
.487
375
.487
376
.486
377
.486
378
.485
379
.484
380
.484
381
.483
382
.483
383
.482
384
.482
385
.482
386
.482
387
.481
388
.481
389
.480
390
.480
391
.480
392
.479
393
.477
394
.477
395
.477
396
.476
397
.474
398
.474
399
.472
400
.471
401
.471
402
.471
403
.471
404
.469
405
.469
406
.468
407
.467
408
.465
409
.464
410
.464
411
.464
412
.463
413
.462
414
.462
415
.462
416
.462
417
.461
418
.461
419
.461
420
.460
421
.460
422
.460
423
.460
424
.460
425
.460
426
.460
427
.460
428
.460
429
.460
430
.460
431
.459
432
.458
433
.457
434
.457
435
.456
436
.455
437
.455
438
.454
439
.451
440
.451
441
.450
442
.449
443
.448
444
.446
445
.445
446
.444
447
.443
448
.442
449
.439
450
.437
451
.436
452
.436
453
.435
454
.434
455
.434
456
.433
457
.430
458
.426
459
.425
460
.425
461
.422
462
.420
463
.418
464
.414
465
.408
466
.406
467
.405
468
.404
469
.403
470
.398
471
.397
472
.393
473
.392
474
.391
475
.391
476
.390
477
.390
478
.388
479
.388
480
.387
481
.387
482
.386
483
.386
484
.386
485
.385
486
.385
487
.385
488
.382
489
.381
490
.379
491
.377
492
.376
493
.375
494
.375
495
.369
496
.366
497
.342
498
.337
499
.336
500
.316
501
.306
502
.303
503
.294
504
.283
505
.263
506
.262
507
.181
508
.170
509
.165
510
.161
511
.155
512
.137
513
.088
514
.070
515
.065
516
.061
517
.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