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