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
.493
186
.492
187
.491
188
.490
189
.488
190
.488
191
.488
192
.488
193
.487
194
.485
195
.484
196
.481
197
.481
198
.480
199
.480
200
.479
201
.478
202
.478
203
.478
204
.477
205
.477
206
.477
207
.476
208
.475
209
.475
210
.475
211
.474
212
.474
213
.474
214
.474
215
.473
216
.472
217
.472
218
.471
219
.470
220
.470
221
.469
222
.466
223
.465
224
.464
225
.462
226
.461
227
.461
228
.458
229
.458
230
.456
231
.456
232
.454
233
.454
234
.452
235
.451
236
.451
237
.449
238
.449
239
.448
240
.448
241
.448
242
.447
243
.447
244
.447
245
.446
246
.446
247
.445
248
.445
249
.445
250
.444
251
.443
252
.443
253
.441
254
.440
255
.438
256
.438
257
.437
258
.437
259
.437
260
.435
261
.434
262
.433
263
.433
264
.428
265
.428
266
.427
267
.425
268
.425
269
.424
270
.424
271
.419
272
.415
273
.413
274
.413
275
.410
276
.410
277
.410
278
.408
279
.407
280
.406
281
.405
282
.401
283
.396
284
.395
285
.392
286
.386
287
.383
288
.381
289
.376
290
.375
291
.373
292
.372
293
.371
294
.370
295
.370
296
.370
297
.370
298
.370
299
.370
300
.370
301
.370
302
.370
303
.370
304
.370
305
.370
306
.370
307
.370
308
.367
309
.366
310
.365
311
.363
312
.362
313
.360
314
.359
315
.358
316
.356
317
.354
318
.351
319
.348
320
.348
321
.346
322
.344
323
.341
324
.341
325
.335
326
.334
327
.333
328
.333
329
.332
330
.330
331
.330
332
.324
333
.324
334
.322
335
.320
336
.311
337
.310
338
.307
339
.306
340
.305
341
.292
342
.291
343
.286
344
.286
345
.285
346
.284
347
.283
348
.279
349
.276
350
.276
351
.270
352
.270
353
.267
354
.265
355
.263
356
.261
357
.256
358
.256
359
.256
360
.256
361
.256
362
.256
363
.256
364
.256
365
.256
366
.255
367
.254
368
.251
369
.250
370
.245
371
.243
372
.243
373
.242
374
.231
375
.226
376
.225
377
.220
378
.219
379
.216
380
.211
381
.211
382
.209
383
.209
384
.208
385
.200
386
.187
387
.186
388
.185
389
.177
390
.167
391
.165
392
.161
393
.160
394
.157
395
.157
396
.156
397
.150
398
.148
399
.144
400
.137
401
.131
402
.129
403
.127
404
.119
405
.116
406
.114
407
.113
408
.112
409
.108
410
.108
411
.107
412
.104
413
.104
414
.103
415
.103
416
.102
417
.101
418
.098
419
.096
420
.095
421
.092
422
.090
423
.083
424
.083
425
.083
426
.082
427
.078
428
.076
429
.075
430
.067
431
.065
432
.065
433
.061
434
.060
435
.054
436
.054
437
.049
438
.046
439
.045
440
.041
441
.032
442
.030
443
.027
444
.023
445
.020
446
.020
447
.014
448
.014
449
.012
450
.011
451
.011
452
.010
453
.009
454
.009
455
.009
456
.004
457
-0.002
458
-0.006
459
-0.006
460
-0.010
461
-0.016
462
-0.053
463
-0.053
464
-0.055
465
-0.067
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481

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