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
.370
309
.367
310
.366
311
.365
312
.363
313
.362
314
.360
315
.359
316
.358
317
.356
318
.354
319
.351
320
.348
321
.348
322
.346
323
.344
324
.341
325
.341
326
.335
327
.334
328
.333
329
.333
330
.332
331
.330
332
.330
333
.324
334
.324
335
.322
336
.320
337
.311
338
.310
339
.307
340
.306
341
.305
342
.292
343
.291
344
.286
345
.286
346
.285
347
.284
348
.283
349
.279
350
.276
351
.276
352
.270
353
.270
354
.267
355
.265
356
.263
357
.261
358
.256
359
.256
360
.256
361
.256
362
.256
363
.256
364
.256
365
.256
366
.256
367
.255
368
.254
369
.251
370
.250
371
.245
372
.243
373
.243
374
.242
375
.231
376
.226
377
.225
378
.220
379
.219
380
.216
381
.211
382
.211
383
.209
384
.209
385
.208
386
.200
387
.187
388
.186
389
.185
390
.177
391
.167
392
.165
393
.161
394
.160
395
.157
396
.157
397
.156
398
.150
399
.148
400
.144
401
.137
402
.131
403
.129
404
.127
405
.119
406
.116
407
.114
408
.113
409
.112
410
.108
411
.108
412
.107
413
.104
414
.104
415
.103
416
.103
417
.102
418
.101
419
.098
420
.096
421
.095
422
.092
423
.090
424
.083
425
.083
426
.083
427
.082
428
.078
429
.076
430
.075
431
.067
432
.065
433
.065
434
.061
435
.060
436
.054
437
.054
438
.049
439
.046
440
.045
441
.041
442
.032
443
.030
444
.027
445
.023
446
.020
447
.020
448
.014
449
.014
450
.012
451
.011
452
.011
453
.010
454
.009
455
.009
456
.009
457
.004
458
-0.002
459
-0.006
460
-0.006
461
-0.010
462
-0.016
463
-0.016
464
-0.032
465
-0.033
466
-0.053
467
-0.053
468
-0.055
469
-0.067
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485

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