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
.568
9
.566
10
.566
11
.562
12
.561
13
.561
14
.561
15
.560
16
.560
17
.560
18
.559
19
.559
20
.559
21
.558
22
.556
23
.555
24
.555
25
.555
26
.554
27
.554
28
.554
29
.554
30
.554
31
.553
32
.553
33
.553
34
.552
35
.552
36
.552
37
.552
38
.552
39
.552
40
.551
41
.551
42
.550
43
.550
44
.550
45
.549
46
.549
47
.549
48
.549
49
.549
50
.549
51
.548
52
.548
53
.548
54
.548
55
.547
56
.547
57
.547
58
.547
59
.547
60
.547
61
.546
62
.546
63
.546
64
.546
65
.546
66
.545
67
.545
68
.545
69
.545
70
.545
71
.545
72
.545
73
.544
74
.544
75
.544
76
.544
77
.543
78
.543
79
.543
80
.543
81
.543
82
.543
83
.543
84
.543
85
.543
86
.542
87
.542
88
.542
89
.541
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
.540
103
.540
104
.540
105
.540
106
.540
107
.539
108
.539
109
.539
110
.539
111
.539
112
.538
113
.538
114
.536
115
.536
116
.536
117
.536
118
.535
119
.535
120
.535
121
.535
122
.535
123
.535
124
.535
125
.535
126
.534
127
.534
128
.534
129
.534
130
.534
131
.534
132
.533
133
.533
134
.533
135
.533
136
.533
137
.532
138
.532
139
.532
140
.532
141
.532
142
.531
143
.531
144
.531
145
.531
146
.531
147
.531
148
.530
149
.530
150
.530
151
.530
152
.529
153
.529
154
.529
155
.528
156
.528
157
.528
158
.527
159
.527
160
.527
161
.527
162
.527
163
.527
164
.526
165
.526
166
.526
167
.525
168
.525
169
.524
170
.523
171
.523
172
.523
173
.522
174
.522
175
.521
176
.521
177
.520
178
.520
179
.520
180
.520
181
.520
182
.519
183
.519
184
.518
185
.518
186
.518
187
.518
188
.518
189
.517
190
.517
191
.517
192
.517
193
.517
194
.517
195
.517
196
.517
197
.516
198
.516
199
.516
200
.515
201
.515
202
.515
203
.515
204
.515
205
.515
206
.514
207
.513
208
.513
209
.513
210
.513
211
.512
212
.512
213
.512
214
.512
215
.512
216
.511
217
.510
218
.510
219
.510
220
.510
221
.509
222
.508
223
.508
224
.508
225
.508
226
.508
227
.508
228
.508
229
.508
230
.508
231
.508
232
.508
233
.508
234
.508
235
.507
236
.507
237
.507
238
.507
239
.506
240
.506
241
.506
242
.506
243
.506
244
.505
245
.505
246
.505
247
.504
248
.504
249
.504
250
.503
251
.503
252
.503
253
.502
254
.502
255
.501
256
.501
257
.501
258
.501
259
.501
260
.499
261
.499
262
.499
263
.499
264
.499
265
.498
266
.498
267
.496
268
.496
269
.496
270
.496
271
.495
272
.494
273
.494
274
.494
275
.493
276
.493
277
.493
278
.493
279
.492
280
.490
281
.488
282
.488
283
.487
284
.487
285
.487
286
.486
287
.485
288
.485
289
.485
290
.483
291
.483
292
.483
293
.482
294
.481
295
.480
296
.479
297
.479
298
.477
299
.477
300
.476
301
.475
302
.475
303
.474
304
.473
305
.472
306
.472
307
.472
308
.471
309
.471
310
.470
311
.470
312
.469
313
.469
314
.468
315
.467
316
.467
317
.466
318
.465
319
.464
320
.464
321
.462
322
.461
323
.461
324
.460
325
.459
326
.459
327
.458
328
.457
329
.457
330
.457
331
.456
332
.455
333
.455
334
.455
335
.455
336
.455
337
.455
338
.455
339
.455
340
.455
341
.455
342
.454
343
.452
344
.451
345
.450
346
.449
347
.447
348
.447
349
.444
350
.443
351
.443
352
.442
353
.441
354
.439
355
.437
356
.437
357
.436
358
.436
359
.435
360
.434
361
.434
362
.432
363
.425
364
.424
365
.423
366
.417
367
.414
368
.414
369
.414
370
.413
371
.411
372
.410
373
.408
374
.408
375
.406
376
.405
377
.404
378
.403
379
.401
380
.401
381
.400
382
.399
383
.395
384
.388
385
.386
386
.385
387
.382
388
.380
389
.380
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
.240
426
.215
427
.215
428
.214
429
.212
430
.207
431
.206
432
.206
433
.192
434
.184
435
.174
436
.173
437
.165
438
.159
439
.142
440
.133
441
.132
442
.130
443
.122
444
.109
445
.039
446
.027
447
.026
448
.015
449
.015
450
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

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