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
.589
2
.579
3
.574
4
.574
5
.572
6
.569
7
.569
8
.569
9
.568
10
.566
11
.566
12
.562
13
.561
14
.561
15
.561
16
.560
17
.560
18
.560
19
.559
20
.559
21
.559
22
.558
23
.556
24
.555
25
.555
26
.555
27
.554
28
.554
29
.554
30
.554
31
.554
32
.553
33
.553
34
.553
35
.552
36
.552
37
.552
38
.552
39
.552
40
.552
41
.551
42
.551
43
.550
44
.550
45
.550
46
.549
47
.549
48
.549
49
.549
50
.549
51
.549
52
.548
53
.548
54
.548
55
.548
56
.547
57
.547
58
.547
59
.547
60
.547
61
.547
62
.546
63
.546
64
.546
65
.546
66
.546
67
.545
68
.545
69
.545
70
.545
71
.545
72
.545
73
.545
74
.544
75
.544
76
.544
77
.544
78
.543
79
.543
80
.543
81
.543
82
.543
83
.543
84
.543
85
.543
86
.543
87
.542
88
.542
89
.542
90
.541
91
.541
92
.541
93
.541
94
.541
95
.541
96
.541
97
.541
98
.541
99
.541
100
.541
101
.541
102
.541
103
.540
104
.540
105
.540
106
.540
107
.540
108
.539
109
.539
110
.539
111
.539
112
.539
113
.538
114
.538
115
.536
116
.536
117
.536
118
.536
119
.536
120
.535
121
.535
122
.535
123
.535
124
.535
125
.535
126
.535
127
.535
128
.534
129
.534
130
.534
131
.534
132
.534
133
.534
134
.533
135
.533
136
.533
137
.533
138
.533
139
.533
140
.532
141
.532
142
.532
143
.532
144
.532
145
.531
146
.531
147
.531
148
.531
149
.531
150
.531
151
.530
152
.530
153
.530
154
.530
155
.529
156
.529
157
.529
158
.528
159
.528
160
.528
161
.527
162
.527
163
.527
164
.527
165
.527
166
.527
167
.526
168
.526
169
.526
170
.525
171
.525
172
.524
173
.523
174
.523
175
.523
176
.522
177
.522
178
.521
179
.521
180
.520
181
.520
182
.520
183
.520
184
.520
185
.519
186
.519
187
.518
188
.518
189
.518
190
.518
191
.518
192
.517
193
.517
194
.517
195
.517
196
.517
197
.517
198
.517
199
.517
200
.516
201
.516
202
.516
203
.515
204
.515
205
.515
206
.515
207
.515
208
.515
209
.514
210
.513
211
.513
212
.513
213
.513
214
.512
215
.512
216
.512
217
.512
218
.512
219
.511
220
.510
221
.510
222
.510
223
.510
224
.509
225
.508
226
.508
227
.508
228
.508
229
.507
230
.507
231
.507
232
.507
233
.506
234
.506
235
.506
236
.506
237
.506
238
.506
239
.505
240
.505
241
.505
242
.504
243
.504
244
.504
245
.503
246
.503
247
.503
248
.502
249
.502
250
.501
251
.501
252
.501
253
.501
254
.501
255
.499
256
.499
257
.499
258
.499
259
.499
260
.498
261
.498
262
.496
263
.496
264
.496
265
.496
266
.494
267
.494
268
.494
269
.494
270
.493
271
.493
272
.493
273
.493
274
.492
275
.490
276
.488
277
.488
278
.487
279
.487
280
.487
281
.486
282
.486
283
.485
284
.485
285
.485
286
.483
287
.483
288
.483
289
.482
290
.481
291
.480
292
.479
293
.479
294
.477
295
.477
296
.476
297
.475
298
.475
299
.474
300
.473
301
.472
302
.472
303
.472
304
.471
305
.471
306
.470
307
.470
308
.469
309
.469
310
.468
311
.467
312
.467
313
.466
314
.465
315
.464
316
.464
317
.462
318
.461
319
.461
320
.460
321
.459
322
.459
323
.458
324
.457
325
.457
326
.457
327
.456
328
.455
329
.455
330
.455
331
.455
332
.455
333
.455
334
.455
335
.455
336
.455
337
.455
338
.454
339
.454
340
.452
341
.451
342
.450
343
.449
344
.447
345
.447
346
.444
347
.443
348
.443
349
.442
350
.441
351
.439
352
.437
353
.437
354
.436
355
.436
356
.435
357
.434
358
.434
359
.432
360
.429
361
.425
362
.424
363
.423
364
.417
365
.414
366
.414
367
.414
368
.413
369
.411
370
.410
371
.408
372
.408
373
.406
374
.404
375
.403
376
.401
377
.401
378
.400
379
.399
380
.395
381
.390
382
.388
383
.386
384
.386
385
.385
386
.382
387
.380
388
.380
389
.373
390
.372
391
.371
392
.366
393
.357
394
.351
395
.351
396
.350
397
.344
398
.339
399
.332
400
.325
401
.323
402
.320
403
.320
404
.315
405
.309
406
.307
407
.285
408
.283
409
.278
410
.277
411
.275
412
.269
413
.268
414
.263
415
.260
416
.257
417
.257
418
.254
419
.252
420
.251
421
.250
422
.250
423
.246
424
.245
425
.243
426
.240
427
.233
428
.220
429
.215
430
.215
431
.214
432
.207
433
.206
434
.206
435
.192
436
.184
437
.174
438
.173
439
.165
440
.159
441
.142
442
.133
443
.130
444
.122
445
.109
446
.039
447
.027
448
.026
449
.015
450
.015
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479

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