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("Rajalingham2018-i2n")
score = benchmark(my_model)

Model scores

Min Alignment Max Alignment

Rank

Model

Score

1
.664
2
.652
3
.646
4
.625
5
.623
6
.617
7
.608
8
.607
9
.606
10
.600
11
.600
12
.596
13
.594
14
.593
15
.590
16
.588
17
.585
18
.585
19
.584
20
.584
21
.584
22
.582
23
.581
24
.579
25
.578
26
.578
27
.577
28
.576
29
.575
30
.574
31
.573
32
.573
33
.573
34
.573
35
.570
36
.570
37
.568
38
.564
39
.564
40
.564
41
.563
42
.563
43
.562
44
.561
45
.561
46
.561
47
.560
48
.560
49
.560
50
.560
51
.558
52
.555
53
.555
54
.555
55
.554
56
.554
57
.554
58
.551
59
.549
60
.549
61
.549
62
.549
63
.549
64
.546
65
.546
66
.546
67
.545
68
.545
69
.545
70
.545
71
.543
72
.543
73
.542
74
.541
75
.541
76
.541
77
.540
78
.540
79
.539
80
.538
81
.537
82
.537
83
.537
84
.537
85
.536
86
.536
87
.536
88
.535
89
.535
90
.534
91
.534
92
.534
93
.534
94
.533
95
.533
96
.532
97
.532
98
.531
99
.530
100
.528
101
.528
102
.528
103
.528
104
.528
105
.528
106
.527
107
.527
108
.527
109
.526
110
.526
111
.524
112
.524
113
.524
114
.523
115
.523
116
.523
117
.522
118
.522
119
.521
120
.521
121
.521
122
.521
123
.520
124
.520
125
.520
126
.520
127
.519
128
.518
129
.518
130
.517
131
.517
132
.515
133
.515
134
.515
135
.515
136
.515
137
.514
138
.513
139
.513
140
.513
141
.512
142
.512
143
.512
144
.511
145
.511
146
.511
147
.511
148
.510
149
.509
150
.509
151
.508
152
.508
153
.507
154
.507
155
.506
156
.505
157
.505
158
.504
159
.503
160
.503
161
.503
162
.503
163
.503
164
.502
165
.502
166
.502
167
.500
168
.500
169
.500
170
.500
171
.499
172
.499
173
.499
174
.499
175
.499
176
.498
177
.498
178
.497
179
.496
180
.496
181
.495
182
.494
183
.493
184
.492
185
.491
186
.490
187
.488
188
.488
189
.488
190
.488
191
.487
192
.485
193
.484
194
.481
195
.481
196
.480
197
.480
198
.479
199
.478
200
.478
201
.478
202
.477
203
.477
204
.477
205
.476
206
.475
207
.475
208
.475
209
.474
210
.474
211
.474
212
.474
213
.473
214
.472
215
.472
216
.471
217
.470
218
.470
219
.469
220
.466
221
.465
222
.464
223
.462
224
.461
225
.461
226
.458
227
.458
228
.456
229
.456
230
.454
231
.454
232
.452
233
.451
234
.451
235
.449
236
.449
237
.448
238
.448
239
.448
240
.447
241
.447
242
.447
243
.446
244
.446
245
.445
246
.445
247
.445
248
.444
249
.443
250
.443
251
.441
252
.440
253
.438
254
.438
255
.437
256
.437
257
.437
258
.435
259
.434
260
.433
261
.433
262
.428
263
.428
264
.427
265
.425
266
.425
267
.424
268
.424
269
.419
270
.415
271
.413
272
.413
273
.410
274
.410
275
.410
276
.408
277
.407
278
.406
279
.405
280
.396
281
.395
282
.392
283
.386
284
.383
285
.381
286
.376
287
.375
288
.373
289
.372
290
.371
291
.370
292
.370
293
.370
294
.370
295
.370
296
.370
297
.370
298
.370
299
.370
300
.370
301
.370
302
.370
303
.370
304
.367
305
.366
306
.365
307
.363
308
.362
309
.360
310
.359
311
.356
312
.354
313
.351
314
.348
315
.346
316
.344
317
.341
318
.341
319
.335
320
.334
321
.333
322
.333
323
.332
324
.330
325
.330
326
.324
327
.322
328
.320
329
.311
330
.310
331
.307
332
.305
333
.291
334
.286
335
.286
336
.285
337
.284
338
.283
339
.279
340
.276
341
.276
342
.270
343
.270
344
.265
345
.263
346
.261
347
.256
348
.256
349
.256
350
.256
351
.256
352
.256
353
.256
354
.256
355
.256
356
.255
357
.254
358
.250
359
.245
360
.243
361
.243
362
.242
363
.231
364
.226
365
.225
366
.220
367
.219
368
.216
369
.211
370
.211
371
.209
372
.209
373
.208
374
.200
375
.187
376
.186
377
.185
378
.177
379
.167
380
.165
381
.161
382
.160
383
.157
384
.150
385
.148
386
.144
387
.137
388
.131
389
.129
390
.127
391
.116
392
.114
393
.113
394
.112
395
.108
396
.108
397
.104
398
.103
399
.103
400
.102
401
.101
402
.098
403
.096
404
.095
405
.092
406
.090
407
.083
408
.083
409
.083
410
.082
411
.078
412
.076
413
.075
414
.067
415
.065
416
.061
417
.060
418
.054
419
.049
420
.046
421
.045
422
.041
423
.032
424
.027
425
.023
426
.020
427
.020
428
.014
429
.014
430
.012
431
.010
432
.009
433
.009
434
.009
435
.004
436
-0.002
437
-0.006
438
-0.006
439
-0.010
440
-0.016
441
-0.053
442
-0.053
443
-0.055
444
-0.067
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459

Benchmark bibtex

@article {Rajalingham240614,
                author = {Rajalingham, Rishi and Issa, Elias B. and Bashivan, Pouya and Kar, Kohitij and Schmidt, Kailyn and DiCarlo, James J.},
                title = {Large-scale, high-resolution comparison of the core visual object recognition behavior of humans, monkeys, and state-of-the-art deep artificial neural networks},
                elocation-id = {240614},
                year = {2018},
                doi = {10.1101/240614},
                publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
                abstract = {Primates{	extemdash}including humans{	extemdash}can typically recognize objects in visual images at a glance even in the face of naturally occurring identity-preserving image transformations (e.g. changes in viewpoint). A primary neuroscience goal is to uncover neuron-level mechanistic models that quantitatively explain this behavior by predicting primate performance for each and every image. Here, we applied this stringent behavioral prediction test to the leading mechanistic models of primate vision (specifically, deep, convolutional, artificial neural networks; ANNs) by directly comparing their behavioral signatures against those of humans and rhesus macaque monkeys. Using high-throughput data collection systems for human and monkey psychophysics, we collected over one million behavioral trials for 2400 images over 276 binary object discrimination tasks. Consistent with previous work, we observed that state-of-the-art deep, feed-forward convolutional ANNs trained for visual categorization (termed DCNNIC models) accurately predicted primate patterns of object-level confusion. However, when we examined behavioral performance for individual images within each object discrimination task, we found that all tested DCNNIC models were significantly non-predictive of primate performance, and that this prediction failure was not accounted for by simple image attributes, nor rescued by simple model modifications. These results show that current DCNNIC models cannot account for the image-level behavioral patterns of primates, and that new ANN models are needed to more precisely capture the neural mechanisms underlying primate object vision. To this end, large-scale, high-resolution primate behavioral benchmarks{	extemdash}such as those obtained here{	extemdash}could serve as direct guides for discovering such models.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Recently, specific feed-forward deep convolutional artificial neural networks (ANNs) models have dramatically advanced our quantitative understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying primate core object recognition. In this work, we tested the limits of those ANNs by systematically comparing the behavioral responses of these models with the behavioral responses of humans and monkeys, at the resolution of individual images. Using these high-resolution metrics, we found that all tested ANN models significantly diverged from primate behavior. Going forward, these high-resolution, large-scale primate behavioral benchmarks could serve as direct guides for discovering better ANN models of the primate visual system.},
                URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/12/240614},
                eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/12/240614.full.pdf},
                journal = {bioRxiv}
            }

Ceiling

0.48.

Note that scores are relative to this ceiling.

Data: Rajalingham2018

240 stimuli match-to-sample task

Metric: i2n