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
.512
146
.511
147
.511
148
.511
149
.511
150
.510
151
.509
152
.509
153
.508
154
.508
155
.507
156
.507
157
.506
158
.505
159
.505
160
.504
161
.503
162
.503
163
.503
164
.503
165
.503
166
.502
167
.502
168
.502
169
.500
170
.500
171
.500
172
.500
173
.499
174
.499
175
.499
176
.499
177
.499
178
.498
179
.498
180
.497
181
.496
182
.496
183
.495
184
.494
185
.493
186
.493
187
.492
188
.491
189
.490
190
.488
191
.488
192
.488
193
.488
194
.487
195
.485
196
.484
197
.481
198
.481
199
.480
200
.480
201
.479
202
.478
203
.478
204
.478
205
.477
206
.477
207
.477
208
.476
209
.475
210
.475
211
.475
212
.474
213
.474
214
.474
215
.474
216
.473
217
.472
218
.472
219
.471
220
.470
221
.470
222
.469
223
.466
224
.465
225
.464
226
.462
227
.461
228
.461
229
.458
230
.458
231
.456
232
.456
233
.454
234
.454
235
.452
236
.451
237
.451
238
.449
239
.449
240
.448
241
.448
242
.448
243
.447
244
.447
245
.447
246
.446
247
.446
248
.445
249
.445
250
.445
251
.444
252
.443
253
.443
254
.441
255
.440
256
.438
257
.438
258
.437
259
.437
260
.437
261
.435
262
.434
263
.433
264
.433
265
.430
266
.428
267
.428
268
.427
269
.425
270
.425
271
.424
272
.424
273
.419
274
.415
275
.413
276
.413
277
.410
278
.410
279
.410
280
.408
281
.407
282
.406
283
.405
284
.401
285
.396
286
.395
287
.392
288
.386
289
.383
290
.381
291
.376
292
.375
293
.373
294
.372
295
.371
296
.370
297
.370
298
.370
299
.370
300
.367
301
.366
302
.365
303
.363
304
.362
305
.360
306
.360
307
.358
308
.356
309
.354
310
.351
311
.348
312
.348
313
.346
314
.344
315
.341
316
.341
317
.335
318
.334
319
.333
320
.333
321
.333
322
.332
323
.330
324
.330
325
.324
326
.324
327
.322
328
.320
329
.311
330
.310
331
.307
332
.307
333
.306
334
.305
335
.292
336
.291
337
.286
338
.286
339
.285
340
.284
341
.283
342
.279
343
.276
344
.276
345
.270
346
.270
347
.267
348
.265
349
.263
350
.261
351
.256
352
.256
353
.256
354
.256
355
.256
356
.256
357
.256
358
.256
359
.256
360
.255
361
.254
362
.251
363
.250
364
.245
365
.243
366
.243
367
.242
368
.231
369
.226
370
.225
371
.220
372
.219
373
.216
374
.211
375
.211
376
.209
377
.209
378
.208
379
.200
380
.187
381
.186
382
.185
383
.177
384
.167
385
.165
386
.161
387
.160
388
.157
389
.157
390
.156
391
.150
392
.148
393
.144
394
.137
395
.131
396
.129
397
.127
398
.119
399
.116
400
.114
401
.113
402
.112
403
.108
404
.108
405
.108
406
.107
407
.104
408
.104
409
.103
410
.103
411
.102
412
.101
413
.098
414
.096
415
.095
416
.092
417
.090
418
.083
419
.083
420
.083
421
.082
422
.078
423
.076
424
.075
425
.067
426
.065
427
.065
428
.061
429
.060
430
.054
431
.054
432
.049
433
.046
434
.045
435
.041
436
.032
437
.030
438
.027
439
.023
440
.020
441
.020
442
.014
443
.014
444
.012
445
.011
446
.011
447
.010
448
.009
449
.009
450
.009
451
.004
452
.000
453
.000
454
.000
455
.000
456
.000
457
.000
458
.000
459
.000
460
.000
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476

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