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
.574
2
.572
3
.569
4
.568
5
.566
6
.566
7
.562
8
.561
9
.561
10
.561
11
.560
12
.560
13
.560
14
.559
15
.559
16
.559
17
.558
18
.556
19
.555
20
.555
21
.555
22
.554
23
.554
24
.554
25
.554
26
.554
27
.553
28
.553
29
.553
30
.552
31
.552
32
.552
33
.552
34
.552
35
.552
36
.551
37
.551
38
.550
39
.550
40
.550
41
.549
42
.549
43
.549
44
.549
45
.549
46
.549
47
.548
48
.548
49
.548
50
.547
51
.547
52
.547
53
.547
54
.547
55
.547
56
.546
57
.546
58
.546
59
.546
60
.546
61
.545
62
.545
63
.545
64
.545
65
.545
66
.545
67
.545
68
.544
69
.544
70
.544
71
.544
72
.543
73
.543
74
.543
75
.543
76
.543
77
.543
78
.543
79
.543
80
.543
81
.542
82
.542
83
.542
84
.541
85
.541
86
.541
87
.541
88
.541
89
.541
90
.541
91
.541
92
.541
93
.541
94
.541
95
.541
96
.541
97
.540
98
.540
99
.540
100
.540
101
.540
102
.539
103
.539
104
.539
105
.539
106
.539
107
.538
108
.538
109
.536
110
.536
111
.536
112
.536
113
.535
114
.535
115
.535
116
.535
117
.535
118
.535
119
.535
120
.535
121
.534
122
.534
123
.534
124
.534
125
.534
126
.534
127
.533
128
.533
129
.533
130
.533
131
.533
132
.532
133
.532
134
.532
135
.532
136
.532
137
.531
138
.531
139
.531
140
.531
141
.531
142
.531
143
.530
144
.530
145
.530
146
.530
147
.529
148
.529
149
.529
150
.528
151
.528
152
.528
153
.527
154
.527
155
.527
156
.527
157
.527
158
.527
159
.526
160
.526
161
.526
162
.525
163
.525
164
.524
165
.523
166
.523
167
.523
168
.522
169
.522
170
.521
171
.521
172
.520
173
.520
174
.520
175
.520
176
.520
177
.519
178
.519
179
.518
180
.518
181
.518
182
.518
183
.518
184
.517
185
.517
186
.517
187
.517
188
.517
189
.517
190
.517
191
.517
192
.516
193
.516
194
.516
195
.515
196
.515
197
.515
198
.515
199
.515
200
.515
201
.514
202
.513
203
.513
204
.513
205
.513
206
.512
207
.512
208
.512
209
.512
210
.512
211
.511
212
.510
213
.510
214
.510
215
.510
216
.509
217
.508
218
.508
219
.508
220
.508
221
.508
222
.508
223
.508
224
.508
225
.508
226
.508
227
.508
228
.508
229
.508
230
.507
231
.507
232
.507
233
.507
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
.495
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
.485
283
.485
284
.485
285
.483
286
.483
287
.483
288
.482
289
.481
290
.480
291
.479
292
.479
293
.477
294
.477
295
.476
296
.475
297
.475
298
.474
299
.473
300
.472
301
.472
302
.472
303
.471
304
.471
305
.470
306
.470
307
.469
308
.469
309
.468
310
.467
311
.467
312
.466
313
.465
314
.464
315
.464
316
.462
317
.461
318
.461
319
.460
320
.459
321
.459
322
.458
323
.457
324
.457
325
.457
326
.456
327
.455
328
.455
329
.455
330
.455
331
.455
332
.455
333
.455
334
.455
335
.455
336
.455
337
.454
338
.452
339
.451
340
.450
341
.449
342
.447
343
.447
344
.444
345
.443
346
.443
347
.442
348
.441
349
.439
350
.437
351
.437
352
.436
353
.436
354
.435
355
.434
356
.434
357
.432
358
.425
359
.424
360
.423
361
.417
362
.414
363
.414
364
.414
365
.413
366
.411
367
.410
368
.408
369
.408
370
.406
371
.405
372
.404
373
.403
374
.401
375
.401
376
.400
377
.399
378
.395
379
.388
380
.386
381
.385
382
.382
383
.380
384
.380
385
.372
386
.371
387
.366
388
.357
389
.351
390
.351
391
.350
392
.344
393
.339
394
.332
395
.325
396
.320
397
.315
398
.307
399
.285
400
.283
401
.278
402
.275
403
.269
404
.268
405
.263
406
.260
407
.257
408
.257
409
.254
410
.252
411
.251
412
.250
413
.250
414
.246
415
.245
416
.240
417
.215
418
.215
419
.214
420
.212
421
.207
422
.206
423
.206
424
.192
425
.184
426
.174
427
.173
428
.165
429
.159
430
.142
431
.133
432
.132
433
.130
434
.122
435
.109
436
.039
437
.027
438
.026
439
.015
440
.015
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
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

0.82.

Note that scores are relative to this ceiling.

Data: MajajHong2015.IT

2560 stimuli recordings from 168 sites in IT

Metric: pls