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
.549
65
.546
66
.546
67
.546
68
.545
69
.545
70
.545
71
.545
72
.543
73
.543
74
.542
75
.541
76
.541
77
.541
78
.540
79
.540
80
.539
81
.538
82
.537
83
.537
84
.537
85
.537
86
.536
87
.536
88
.536
89
.535
90
.535
91
.534
92
.534
93
.534
94
.534
95
.533
96
.533
97
.532
98
.532
99
.531
100
.530
101
.528
102
.528
103
.528
104
.528
105
.528
106
.528
107
.527
108
.527
109
.527
110
.526
111
.526
112
.524
113
.524
114
.524
115
.523
116
.523
117
.523
118
.522
119
.522
120
.521
121
.521
122
.521
123
.521
124
.520
125
.520
126
.520
127
.520
128
.519
129
.518
130
.518
131
.517
132
.517
133
.515
134
.515
135
.515
136
.515
137
.515
138
.514
139
.513
140
.513
141
.513
142
.512
143
.512
144
.512
145
.511
146
.511
147
.511
148
.511
149
.510
150
.509
151
.509
152
.508
153
.508
154
.507
155
.507
156
.506
157
.505
158
.505
159
.504
160
.503
161
.503
162
.503
163
.503
164
.503
165
.502
166
.502
167
.502
168
.500
169
.500
170
.500
171
.500
172
.499
173
.499
174
.499
175
.499
176
.499
177
.498
178
.498
179
.497
180
.496
181
.496
182
.495
183
.494
184
.493
185
.492
186
.491
187
.490
188
.488
189
.488
190
.488
191
.488
192
.487
193
.485
194
.484
195
.481
196
.481
197
.480
198
.480
199
.479
200
.478
201
.478
202
.478
203
.477
204
.477
205
.477
206
.476
207
.475
208
.475
209
.475
210
.474
211
.474
212
.474
213
.474
214
.473
215
.472
216
.472
217
.471
218
.470
219
.470
220
.469
221
.466
222
.465
223
.464
224
.462
225
.461
226
.461
227
.458
228
.458
229
.456
230
.456
231
.454
232
.454
233
.452
234
.451
235
.451
236
.449
237
.449
238
.448
239
.448
240
.448
241
.447
242
.447
243
.447
244
.446
245
.446
246
.445
247
.445
248
.445
249
.444
250
.443
251
.443
252
.441
253
.440
254
.438
255
.438
256
.437
257
.437
258
.437
259
.435
260
.434
261
.433
262
.433
263
.428
264
.428
265
.427
266
.425
267
.425
268
.424
269
.424
270
.419
271
.415
272
.413
273
.413
274
.410
275
.410
276
.410
277
.408
278
.407
279
.406
280
.405
281
.396
282
.395
283
.392
284
.386
285
.383
286
.381
287
.376
288
.375
289
.373
290
.372
291
.371
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
.370
305
.367
306
.366
307
.365
308
.363
309
.362
310
.360
311
.359
312
.356
313
.354
314
.351
315
.348
316
.346
317
.344
318
.341
319
.341
320
.335
321
.334
322
.333
323
.333
324
.332
325
.330
326
.330
327
.324
328
.322
329
.320
330
.311
331
.310
332
.307
333
.305
334
.291
335
.286
336
.286
337
.285
338
.284
339
.283
340
.279
341
.276
342
.276
343
.270
344
.270
345
.265
346
.263
347
.261
348
.256
349
.256
350
.256
351
.256
352
.256
353
.256
354
.256
355
.256
356
.256
357
.255
358
.254
359
.250
360
.245
361
.243
362
.243
363
.242
364
.231
365
.226
366
.225
367
.220
368
.219
369
.216
370
.211
371
.211
372
.209
373
.209
374
.208
375
.200
376
.187
377
.186
378
.185
379
.177
380
.167
381
.165
382
.161
383
.160
384
.157
385
.157
386
.156
387
.150
388
.148
389
.144
390
.137
391
.131
392
.129
393
.127
394
.119
395
.116
396
.114
397
.113
398
.112
399
.108
400
.108
401
.107
402
.104
403
.103
404
.103
405
.102
406
.101
407
.098
408
.096
409
.095
410
.092
411
.090
412
.083
413
.083
414
.083
415
.082
416
.078
417
.076
418
.075
419
.067
420
.065
421
.061
422
.060
423
.054
424
.054
425
.049
426
.046
427
.045
428
.041
429
.032
430
.030
431
.027
432
.023
433
.020
434
.020
435
.014
436
.014
437
.012
438
.011
439
.011
440
.010
441
.009
442
.009
443
.009
444
.004
445
-0.002
446
-0.006
447
-0.006
448
-0.010
449
-0.016
450
-0.053
451
-0.053
452
-0.055
453
-0.067
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468

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