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
.777
2
.750
3
.714
4
.698
5
.663
6
.655
7
.624
8
.620
9
.614
10
.614
11
.611
12
.610
13
.610
14
.610
15
.610
16
.608
17
.607
18
.605
19
.605
20
.604
21
.604
22
.604
23
.603
24
.603
25
.602
26
.602
27
.602
28
.602
29
.602
30
.602
31
.602
32
.602
33
.602
34
.602
35
.602
36
.602
37
.602
38
.602
39
.601
40
.601
41
.601
42
.600
43
.600
44
.600
45
.600
46
.600
47
.599
48
.599
49
.599
50
.599
51
.599
52
.599
53
.598
54
.598
55
.598
56
.598
57
.598
58
.598
59
.597
60
.597
61
.597
62
.597
63
.597
64
.596
65
.596
66
.596
67
.596
68
.596
69
.596
70
.596
71
.595
72
.595
73
.595
74
.594
75
.593
76
.592
77
.592
78
.592
79
.592
80
.592
81
.592
82
.592
83
.592
84
.592
85
.592
86
.591
87
.591
88
.591
89
.591
90
.591
91
.591
92
.591
93
.590
94
.590
95
.590
96
.590
97
.589
98
.589
99
.589
100
.589
101
.589
102
.589
103
.589
104
.589
105
.589
106
.589
107
.588
108
.588
109
.588
110
.588
111
.588
112
.588
113
.587
114
.587
115
.587
116
.587
117
.587
118
.586
119
.586
120
.586
121
.586
122
.586
123
.585
124
.585
125
.585
126
.585
127
.584
128
.584
129
.584
130
.584
131
.584
132
.584
133
.584
134
.584
135
.583
136
.583
137
.583
138
.583
139
.583
140
.583
141
.583
142
.582
143
.582
144
.582
145
.582
146
.582
147
.582
148
.582
149
.582
150
.582
151
.582
152
.581
153
.581
154
.581
155
.581
156
.581
157
.581
158
.581
159
.580
160
.580
161
.580
162
.580
163
.580
164
.580
165
.580
166
.580
167
.579
168
.579
169
.579
170
.579
171
.579
172
.579
173
.578
174
.578
175
.578
176
.578
177
.578
178
.578
179
.578
180
.578
181
.578
182
.577
183
.577
184
.577
185
.577
186
.577
187
.576
188
.576
189
.576
190
.575
191
.575
192
.575
193
.575
194
.575
195
.575
196
.575
197
.574
198
.574
199
.574
200
.574
201
.574
202
.574
203
.574
204
.574
205
.574
206
.574
207
.574
208
.573
209
.573
210
.573
211
.573
212
.573
213
.572
214
.572
215
.572
216
.571
217
.571
218
.571
219
.571
220
.570
221
.570
222
.570
223
.570
224
.570
225
.570
226
.570
227
.570
228
.570
229
.569
230
.569
231
.569
232
.569
233
.569
234
.569
235
.569
236
.569
237
.569
238
.569
239
.568
240
.568
241
.568
242
.568
243
.568
244
.568
245
.568
246
.567
247
.567
248
.567
249
.566
250
.566
251
.566
252
.566
253
.566
254
.566
255
.566
256
.566
257
.565
258
.565
259
.565
260
.564
261
.564
262
.564
263
.564
264
.563
265
.563
266
.563
267
.563
268
.562
269
.562
270
.562
271
.562
272
.562
273
.562
274
.561
275
.560
276
.560
277
.560
278
.560
279
.560
280
.560
281
.560
282
.559
283
.559
284
.558
285
.558
286
.558
287
.558
288
.558
289
.558
290
.558
291
.557
292
.557
293
.557
294
.557
295
.556
296
.556
297
.556
298
.555
299
.555
300
.555
301
.555
302
.555
303
.554
304
.554
305
.553
306
.553
307
.553
308
.551
309
.551
310
.551
311
.550
312
.550
313
.550
314
.550
315
.550
316
.550
317
.549
318
.549
319
.549
320
.549
321
.549
322
.549
323
.548
324
.548
325
.548
326
.548
327
.548
328
.548
329
.547
330
.547
331
.546
332
.545
333
.545
334
.544
335
.544
336
.543
337
.542
338
.541
339
.541
340
.540
341
.539
342
.539
343
.539
344
.538
345
.538
346
.537
347
.537
348
.536
349
.536
350
.536
351
.533
352
.533
353
.533
354
.531
355
.530
356
.530
357
.527
358
.526
359
.524
360
.523
361
.521
362
.519
363
.518
364
.517
365
.517
366
.516
367
.516
368
.516
369
.515
370
.515
371
.514
372
.514
373
.514
374
.514
375
.514
376
.514
377
.514
378
.514
379
.514
380
.514
381
.514
382
.513
383
.511
384
.511
385
.509
386
.509
387
.504
388
.504
389
.503
390
.501
391
.501
392
.498
393
.498
394
.497
395
.494
396
.494
397
.491
398
.489
399
.487
400
.487
401
.486
402
.485
403
.485
404
.483
405
.481
406
.476
407
.472
408
.469
409
.462
410
.456
411
.454
412
.453
413
.452
414
.451
415
.445
416
.443
417
.439
418
.438
419
.437
420
.437
421
.436
422
.433
423
.433
424
.432
425
.432
426
.431
427
.431
428
.431
429
.430
430
.430
431
.427
432
.421
433
.420
434
.419
435
.418
436
.409
437
.376
438
.376
439
.342
440
.339
441
.328
442
.316
443
.185
444
.179
445
.154
446
.098
447
.078
448
.073
449
.068
450
.068
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469

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