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
.620
2
.614
3
.614
4
.611
5
.610
6
.610
7
.610
8
.610
9
.608
10
.607
11
.605
12
.605
13
.604
14
.604
15
.604
16
.603
17
.603
18
.602
19
.602
20
.602
21
.602
22
.602
23
.602
24
.602
25
.602
26
.602
27
.602
28
.602
29
.602
30
.602
31
.602
32
.601
33
.601
34
.601
35
.600
36
.600
37
.600
38
.600
39
.600
40
.599
41
.599
42
.599
43
.599
44
.599
45
.599
46
.598
47
.598
48
.598
49
.598
50
.598
51
.597
52
.597
53
.597
54
.597
55
.596
56
.596
57
.596
58
.596
59
.596
60
.596
61
.596
62
.595
63
.595
64
.595
65
.594
66
.593
67
.592
68
.592
69
.592
70
.592
71
.592
72
.592
73
.592
74
.592
75
.592
76
.591
77
.591
78
.591
79
.591
80
.591
81
.591
82
.591
83
.590
84
.590
85
.590
86
.590
87
.589
88
.589
89
.589
90
.589
91
.589
92
.589
93
.589
94
.589
95
.589
96
.589
97
.588
98
.588
99
.588
100
.588
101
.588
102
.588
103
.587
104
.587
105
.587
106
.587
107
.587
108
.586
109
.586
110
.586
111
.586
112
.586
113
.585
114
.585
115
.585
116
.585
117
.584
118
.584
119
.584
120
.584
121
.584
122
.584
123
.584
124
.584
125
.583
126
.583
127
.583
128
.583
129
.583
130
.583
131
.583
132
.582
133
.582
134
.582
135
.582
136
.582
137
.582
138
.582
139
.582
140
.582
141
.582
142
.581
143
.581
144
.581
145
.581
146
.581
147
.581
148
.581
149
.580
150
.580
151
.580
152
.580
153
.580
154
.580
155
.580
156
.579
157
.579
158
.579
159
.579
160
.579
161
.579
162
.578
163
.578
164
.578
165
.578
166
.578
167
.578
168
.578
169
.578
170
.578
171
.577
172
.577
173
.577
174
.577
175
.577
176
.576
177
.576
178
.576
179
.575
180
.575
181
.575
182
.575
183
.575
184
.575
185
.575
186
.574
187
.574
188
.574
189
.574
190
.574
191
.574
192
.574
193
.574
194
.574
195
.574
196
.574
197
.573
198
.573
199
.573
200
.573
201
.573
202
.572
203
.572
204
.572
205
.571
206
.571
207
.571
208
.571
209
.570
210
.570
211
.570
212
.570
213
.570
214
.570
215
.570
216
.570
217
.570
218
.569
219
.569
220
.569
221
.569
222
.569
223
.569
224
.569
225
.569
226
.569
227
.569
228
.568
229
.568
230
.568
231
.568
232
.568
233
.568
234
.568
235
.567
236
.567
237
.567
238
.566
239
.566
240
.566
241
.566
242
.566
243
.566
244
.566
245
.566
246
.565
247
.565
248
.565
249
.564
250
.564
251
.564
252
.564
253
.563
254
.563
255
.563
256
.563
257
.562
258
.562
259
.562
260
.562
261
.562
262
.562
263
.561
264
.560
265
.560
266
.560
267
.560
268
.560
269
.560
270
.560
271
.559
272
.559
273
.558
274
.558
275
.558
276
.558
277
.558
278
.558
279
.558
280
.557
281
.557
282
.557
283
.557
284
.556
285
.556
286
.556
287
.555
288
.555
289
.555
290
.555
291
.555
292
.554
293
.554
294
.553
295
.553
296
.553
297
.551
298
.551
299
.551
300
.550
301
.550
302
.550
303
.550
304
.550
305
.550
306
.550
307
.550
308
.550
309
.550
310
.550
311
.550
312
.550
313
.550
314
.550
315
.549
316
.549
317
.549
318
.549
319
.548
320
.548
321
.548
322
.548
323
.548
324
.548
325
.547
326
.547
327
.546
328
.545
329
.545
330
.544
331
.544
332
.543
333
.542
334
.541
335
.541
336
.541
337
.540
338
.539
339
.539
340
.538
341
.538
342
.537
343
.536
344
.536
345
.536
346
.533
347
.533
348
.531
349
.530
350
.530
351
.527
352
.526
353
.524
354
.523
355
.521
356
.519
357
.518
358
.517
359
.517
360
.516
361
.516
362
.516
363
.515
364
.515
365
.514
366
.514
367
.514
368
.514
369
.514
370
.514
371
.514
372
.514
373
.514
374
.514
375
.514
376
.513
377
.511
378
.511
379
.509
380
.509
381
.504
382
.504
383
.503
384
.501
385
.501
386
.498
387
.498
388
.497
389
.494
390
.494
391
.491
392
.489
393
.487
394
.486
395
.485
396
.485
397
.483
398
.481
399
.476
400
.473
401
.469
402
.466
403
.456
404
.454
405
.453
406
.452
407
.451
408
.445
409
.443
410
.439
411
.438
412
.437
413
.436
414
.433
415
.433
416
.432
417
.432
418
.431
419
.431
420
.430
421
.430
422
.427
423
.421
424
.420
425
.419
426
.418
427
.376
428
.342
429
.339
430
.328
431
.316
432
.185
433
.179
434
.154
435
.098
436
.078
437
.073
438
.068
439
.068
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458

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