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.IT-pls")
score = benchmark(my_model)

Model scores

Min Alignment Max Alignment

Rank

Model

Score

1
.484
2
.476
3
.472
4
.471
5
.470
6
.468
7
.468
8
.467
9
.465
10
.465
11
.462
12
.461
13
.461
14
.461
15
.460
16
.460
17
.460
18
.459
19
.459
20
.459
21
.459
22
.457
23
.456
24
.456
25
.456
26
.455
27
.455
28
.455
29
.455
30
.455
31
.455
32
.454
33
.454
34
.454
35
.454
36
.454
37
.454
38
.453
39
.453
40
.453
41
.453
42
.452
43
.452
44
.452
45
.451
46
.451
47
.451
48
.451
49
.451
50
.451
51
.450
52
.450
53
.450
54
.450
55
.450
56
.450
57
.450
58
.449
59
.449
60
.449
61
.449
62
.449
63
.449
64
.449
65
.449
66
.448
67
.448
68
.448
69
.448
70
.448
71
.448
72
.448
73
.447
74
.447
75
.447
76
.447
77
.447
78
.446
79
.446
80
.446
81
.446
82
.446
83
.446
84
.446
85
.446
86
.446
87
.446
88
.445
89
.445
90
.445
91
.445
92
.445
93
.445
94
.445
95
.445
96
.445
97
.444
98
.444
99
.444
100
.444
101
.444
102
.444
103
.444
104
.444
105
.444
106
.443
107
.443
108
.443
109
.443
110
.443
111
.443
112
.442
113
.442
114
.441
115
.440
116
.440
117
.440
118
.440
119
.440
120
.440
121
.440
122
.440
123
.439
124
.439
125
.439
126
.439
127
.439
128
.439
129
.439
130
.439
131
.439
132
.438
133
.438
134
.438
135
.438
136
.438
137
.438
138
.438
139
.437
140
.437
141
.437
142
.437
143
.437
144
.437
145
.437
146
.437
147
.436
148
.436
149
.436
150
.435
151
.435
152
.435
153
.435
154
.435
155
.435
156
.434
157
.434
158
.434
159
.433
160
.433
161
.433
162
.433
163
.433
164
.433
165
.432
166
.432
167
.432
168
.432
169
.431
170
.430
171
.430
172
.430
173
.430
174
.429
175
.429
176
.428
177
.428
178
.428
179
.428
180
.428
181
.427
182
.427
183
.427
184
.426
185
.426
186
.426
187
.426
188
.426
189
.425
190
.425
191
.425
192
.425
193
.425
194
.425
195
.425
196
.425
197
.425
198
.424
199
.424
200
.424
201
.423
202
.423
203
.423
204
.423
205
.423
206
.423
207
.423
208
.422
209
.422
210
.422
211
.422
212
.421
213
.421
214
.421
215
.421
216
.420
217
.420
218
.419
219
.419
220
.419
221
.419
222
.419
223
.417
224
.417
225
.417
226
.417
227
.417
228
.417
229
.417
230
.417
231
.417
232
.417
233
.417
234
.417
235
.417
236
.417
237
.417
238
.417
239
.416
240
.416
241
.416
242
.416
243
.416
244
.416
245
.416
246
.416
247
.416
248
.415
249
.415
250
.415
251
.414
252
.414
253
.414
254
.413
255
.413
256
.413
257
.413
258
.412
259
.412
260
.412
261
.412
262
.412
263
.411
264
.410
265
.410
266
.410
267
.410
268
.410
269
.409
270
.409
271
.408
272
.408
273
.408
274
.407
275
.407
276
.406
277
.406
278
.406
279
.406
280
.405
281
.405
282
.405
283
.405
284
.405
285
.403
286
.401
287
.401
288
.401
289
.400
290
.400
291
.399
292
.399
293
.399
294
.399
295
.398
296
.397
297
.397
298
.397
299
.396
300
.395
301
.395
302
.393
303
.393
304
.392
305
.392
306
.391
307
.391
308
.390
309
.389
310
.389
311
.388
312
.388
313
.388
314
.387
315
.387
316
.386
317
.386
318
.386
319
.385
320
.385
321
.384
322
.384
323
.383
324
.382
325
.381
326
.381
327
.380
328
.380
329
.379
330
.379
331
.378
332
.377
333
.377
334
.376
335
.376
336
.376
337
.376
338
.375
339
.374
340
.374
341
.374
342
.374
343
.374
344
.374
345
.374
346
.374
347
.374
348
.374
349
.373
350
.373
351
.372
352
.371
353
.370
354
.370
355
.369
356
.367
357
.367
358
.365
359
.364
360
.364
361
.363
362
.363
363
.361
364
.359
365
.359
366
.359
367
.359
368
.358
369
.358
370
.357
371
.356
372
.355
373
.353
374
.349
375
.349
376
.348
377
.343
378
.340
379
.340
380
.340
381
.339
382
.337
383
.337
384
.335
385
.335
386
.334
387
.333
388
.332
389
.331
390
.329
391
.329
392
.329
393
.328
394
.325
395
.321
396
.319
397
.318
398
.317
399
.317
400
.314
401
.313
402
.312
403
.307
404
.306
405
.305
406
.301
407
.294
408
.289
409
.289
410
.287
411
.283
412
.278
413
.273
414
.267
415
.266
416
.263
417
.263
418
.259
419
.254
420
.252
421
.234
422
.232
423
.228
424
.228
425
.226
426
.221
427
.220
428
.216
429
.213
430
.211
431
.211
432
.209
433
.207
434
.206
435
.205
436
.205
437
.202
438
.201
439
.199
440
.197
441
.192
442
.181
443
.177
444
.177
445
.176
446
.174
447
.170
448
.170
449
.169
450
.158
451
.151
452
.143
453
.142
454
.136
455
.130
456
.117
457
.109
458
.108
459
.107
460
.101
461
.089
462
.032
463
.022
464
.021
465
.013
466
.012

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

0.82.

Note that scores are relative to this ceiling.

Data: MajajHong2015.IT

2560 stimuli recordings from 168 sites in IT

Metric: pls