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
.451
53
.450
54
.450
55
.450
56
.450
57
.450
58
.450
59
.450
60
.450
61
.449
62
.449
63
.449
64
.449
65
.449
66
.449
67
.449
68
.449
69
.448
70
.448
71
.448
72
.448
73
.448
74
.448
75
.448
76
.448
77
.447
78
.447
79
.447
80
.447
81
.447
82
.446
83
.446
84
.446
85
.446
86
.446
87
.446
88
.446
89
.446
90
.446
91
.446
92
.445
93
.445
94
.445
95
.445
96
.445
97
.445
98
.445
99
.445
100
.445
101
.445
102
.444
103
.444
104
.444
105
.444
106
.444
107
.444
108
.444
109
.444
110
.444
111
.443
112
.443
113
.443
114
.443
115
.443
116
.443
117
.442
118
.442
119
.441
120
.441
121
.440
122
.440
123
.440
124
.440
125
.440
126
.440
127
.440
128
.440
129
.439
130
.439
131
.439
132
.439
133
.439
134
.439
135
.439
136
.439
137
.439
138
.439
139
.438
140
.438
141
.438
142
.438
143
.438
144
.438
145
.438
146
.438
147
.437
148
.437
149
.437
150
.437
151
.437
152
.437
153
.437
154
.437
155
.437
156
.436
157
.436
158
.436
159
.435
160
.435
161
.435
162
.435
163
.435
164
.435
165
.434
166
.434
167
.434
168
.433
169
.433
170
.433
171
.433
172
.433
173
.433
174
.432
175
.432
176
.432
177
.432
178
.431
179
.431
180
.430
181
.430
182
.430
183
.430
184
.429
185
.429
186
.428
187
.428
188
.428
189
.428
190
.428
191
.427
192
.427
193
.427
194
.427
195
.426
196
.426
197
.426
198
.426
199
.426
200
.425
201
.425
202
.425
203
.425
204
.425
205
.425
206
.425
207
.425
208
.425
209
.424
210
.424
211
.424
212
.423
213
.423
214
.423
215
.423
216
.423
217
.423
218
.423
219
.423
220
.422
221
.422
222
.422
223
.422
224
.421
225
.421
226
.421
227
.421
228
.420
229
.420
230
.419
231
.419
232
.419
233
.419
234
.419
235
.417
236
.417
237
.417
238
.417
239
.417
240
.416
241
.416
242
.416
243
.416
244
.416
245
.416
246
.416
247
.416
248
.416
249
.416
250
.415
251
.415
252
.415
253
.414
254
.414
255
.414
256
.414
257
.413
258
.413
259
.413
260
.413
261
.412
262
.412
263
.412
264
.412
265
.412
266
.411
267
.410
268
.410
269
.410
270
.410
271
.410
272
.410
273
.410
274
.409
275
.409
276
.408
277
.408
278
.408
279
.408
280
.408
281
.407
282
.406
283
.406
284
.406
285
.406
286
.405
287
.405
288
.405
289
.405
290
.405
291
.403
292
.402
293
.401
294
.401
295
.401
296
.400
297
.400
298
.400
299
.400
300
.399
301
.399
302
.399
303
.399
304
.398
305
.397
306
.397
307
.397
308
.396
309
.396
310
.395
311
.395
312
.393
313
.393
314
.392
315
.392
316
.391
317
.391
318
.391
319
.390
320
.389
321
.389
322
.388
323
.388
324
.388
325
.388
326
.387
327
.387
328
.386
329
.386
330
.386
331
.385
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
.379
345
.378
346
.378
347
.377
348
.377
349
.376
350
.376
351
.376
352
.376
353
.375
354
.374
355
.374
356
.374
357
.374
358
.374
359
.374
360
.374
361
.374
362
.374
363
.374
364
.373
365
.373
366
.372
367
.371
368
.370
369
.370
370
.369
371
.367
372
.367
373
.365
374
.365
375
.364
376
.364
377
.363
378
.363
379
.361
380
.359
381
.359
382
.359
383
.359
384
.359
385
.358
386
.358
387
.357
388
.356
389
.355
390
.353
391
.349
392
.349
393
.348
394
.344
395
.343
396
.340
397
.340
398
.340
399
.339
400
.337
401
.337
402
.335
403
.335
404
.334
405
.332
406
.331
407
.329
408
.329
409
.329
410
.328
411
.325
412
.324
413
.321
414
.319
415
.318
416
.317
417
.317
418
.314
419
.313
420
.312
421
.307
422
.306
423
.305
424
.301
425
.295
426
.294
427
.289
428
.289
429
.287
430
.283
431
.280
432
.279
433
.278
434
.273
435
.267
436
.266
437
.263
438
.263
439
.259
440
.254
441
.252
442
.234
443
.232
444
.228
445
.228
446
.228
447
.226
448
.221
449
.220
450
.216
451
.214
452
.213
453
.211
454
.211
455
.209
456
.207
457
.206
458
.205
459
.205
460
.202
461
.201
462
.199
463
.197
464
.192
465
.181
466
.178
467
.177
468
.177
469
.176
470
.170
471
.170
472
.169
473
.158
474
.157
475
.151
476
.146
477
.143
478
.142
479
.136
480
.130
481
.122
482
.117
483
.117
484
.109
485
.107
486
.101
487
.089
488
.032
489
.022
490
.021
491
.013
492
.012
493

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