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