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
.467
10
.465
11
.465
12
.462
13
.461
14
.461
15
.461
16
.460
17
.460
18
.460
19
.459
20
.459
21
.459
22
.459
23
.457
24
.456
25
.456
26
.456
27
.455
28
.455
29
.455
30
.455
31
.455
32
.455
33
.454
34
.454
35
.454
36
.454
37
.454
38
.454
39
.453
40
.453
41
.453
42
.453
43
.452
44
.452
45
.452
46
.451
47
.451
48
.451
49
.451
50
.451
51
.451
52
.450
53
.450
54
.450
55
.450
56
.450
57
.450
58
.450
59
.450
60
.450
61
.450
62
.449
63
.449
64
.449
65
.449
66
.449
67
.449
68
.449
69
.449
70
.449
71
.448
72
.448
73
.448
74
.448
75
.448
76
.448
77
.448
78
.448
79
.447
80
.447
81
.447
82
.447
83
.447
84
.447
85
.446
86
.446
87
.446
88
.446
89
.446
90
.446
91
.446
92
.446
93
.446
94
.446
95
.446
96
.445
97
.445
98
.445
99
.445
100
.445
101
.445
102
.445
103
.445
104
.445
105
.445
106
.444
107
.444
108
.444
109
.444
110
.444
111
.444
112
.444
113
.444
114
.444
115
.443
116
.443
117
.443
118
.443
119
.443
120
.443
121
.442
122
.442
123
.441
124
.441
125
.440
126
.440
127
.440
128
.440
129
.440
130
.440
131
.440
132
.440
133
.439
134
.439
135
.439
136
.439
137
.439
138
.439
139
.439
140
.439
141
.439
142
.439
143
.438
144
.438
145
.438
146
.438
147
.438
148
.438
149
.438
150
.438
151
.437
152
.437
153
.437
154
.437
155
.437
156
.437
157
.437
158
.437
159
.437
160
.437
161
.436
162
.436
163
.436
164
.435
165
.435
166
.435
167
.435
168
.435
169
.435
170
.434
171
.434
172
.434
173
.434
174
.433
175
.433
176
.433
177
.433
178
.433
179
.433
180
.433
181
.432
182
.432
183
.432
184
.432
185
.431
186
.431
187
.430
188
.430
189
.430
190
.430
191
.429
192
.429
193
.428
194
.428
195
.428
196
.428
197
.428
198
.427
199
.427
200
.427
201
.426
202
.426
203
.426
204
.426
205
.426
206
.425
207
.425
208
.425
209
.425
210
.425
211
.425
212
.425
213
.425
214
.425
215
.424
216
.424
217
.424
218
.423
219
.423
220
.423
221
.423
222
.423
223
.423
224
.423
225
.423
226
.422
227
.422
228
.422
229
.422
230
.421
231
.421
232
.421
233
.421
234
.420
235
.420
236
.419
237
.419
238
.419
239
.419
240
.419
241
.417
242
.417
243
.417
244
.417
245
.417
246
.416
247
.416
248
.416
249
.416
250
.416
251
.416
252
.416
253
.416
254
.416
255
.416
256
.415
257
.415
258
.415
259
.414
260
.414
261
.414
262
.413
263
.413
264
.413
265
.413
266
.412
267
.412
268
.412
269
.412
270
.412
271
.411
272
.410
273
.410
274
.410
275
.410
276
.410
277
.410
278
.410
279
.409
280
.409
281
.408
282
.408
283
.408
284
.408
285
.408
286
.407
287
.406
288
.406
289
.406
290
.406
291
.405
292
.405
293
.405
294
.405
295
.405
296
.403
297
.401
298
.401
299
.401
300
.400
301
.400
302
.400
303
.400
304
.399
305
.399
306
.399
307
.399
308
.398
309
.397
310
.397
311
.397
312
.396
313
.395
314
.395
315
.393
316
.393
317
.392
318
.392
319
.391
320
.391
321
.390
322
.389
323
.389
324
.388
325
.388
326
.388
327
.387
328
.387
329
.386
330
.386
331
.386
332
.385
333
.385
334
.384
335
.384
336
.383
337
.382
338
.381
339
.381
340
.380
341
.380
342
.379
343
.379
344
.378
345
.377
346
.377
347
.376
348
.376
349
.376
350
.376
351
.375
352
.374
353
.374
354
.374
355
.374
356
.374
357
.374
358
.374
359
.374
360
.374
361
.374
362
.373
363
.373
364
.372
365
.371
366
.370
367
.370
368
.369
369
.367
370
.367
371
.365
372
.365
373
.364
374
.364
375
.363
376
.363
377
.361
378
.359
379
.359
380
.359
381
.359
382
.358
383
.358
384
.357
385
.356
386
.355
387
.353
388
.349
389
.349
390
.348
391
.344
392
.343
393
.340
394
.340
395
.340
396
.339
397
.337
398
.337
399
.335
400
.335
401
.334
402
.333
403
.332
404
.331
405
.329
406
.329
407
.329
408
.328
409
.325
410
.324
411
.321
412
.319
413
.318
414
.317
415
.317
416
.314
417
.313
418
.312
419
.307
420
.306
421
.305
422
.301
423
.295
424
.294
425
.289
426
.289
427
.287
428
.283
429
.280
430
.279
431
.278
432
.273
433
.267
434
.266
435
.263
436
.263
437
.259
438
.254
439
.252
440
.234
441
.232
442
.228
443
.228
444
.228
445
.226
446
.221
447
.220
448
.216
449
.214
450
.213
451
.211
452
.211
453
.209
454
.207
455
.206
456
.205
457
.205
458
.202
459
.201
460
.199
461
.197
462
.192
463
.181
464
.178
465
.177
466
.177
467
.176
468
.174
469
.170
470
.170
471
.169
472
.158
473
.157
474
.151
475
.146
476
.143
477
.142
478
.136
479
.130
480
.122
481
.117
482
.117
483
.109
484
.108
485
.107
486
.101
487
.089
488
.032
489
.022
490
.021
491
.013
492
.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