Scores on benchmarks

Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.
.370 average_vision rank 59
99 benchmarks
.370
0
ceiling
best
median
.354 neural_vision rank 23
56 benchmarks
.354
0
ceiling
best
median
.450 V1 rank 25
28 benchmarks
.450
0
ceiling
best
median
.319 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-rdm v1 [reference] rank 10
.319
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.446 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-ridge v1 [reference] rank 61
.446
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.179 FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls v3 [reference] rank 451
.179
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 102 sites in V1
315 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.617 Hebart2023_fmri.V1-ridgecv v3 rank 16
.617
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.676 Marques2020 [reference] rank 307
22 benchmarks
.676
0
ceiling
best
median
.930 V1-orientation rank 20
7 benchmarks
.930
0
ceiling
best
median
.974 Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or v1 rank 91
.974
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.973 Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance v1 rank 4
.973
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.866 Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio v1 rank 163
.866
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.933 Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff v1 rank 76
.933
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.826 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth v1 rank 241
.826
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective v1 rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.941 Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio v1 rank 13
.941
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.931 V1-receptive_field_size rank 5
2 benchmarks
.931
0
ceiling
best
median
.964 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field v1 [reference] rank 9
.964
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.899 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter v1 [reference] rank 12
.899
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.894 V1-response_magnitude rank 136
3 benchmarks
.894
0
ceiling
best
median
.827 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise v1 [reference] rank 145
.827
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.887 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture v1 [reference] rank 162
.887
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.969 Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc v1 rank 118
.969
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.384 V1-response_selectivity rank 383
4 benchmarks
.384
0
ceiling
best
median
.379 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity v1 [reference] rank 380
.379
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.241 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness v1 [reference] rank 385
.241
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.570 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio v1 [reference] rank 345
.570
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.346 Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio v1 rank 309
.346
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.717 V1-spatial_frequency rank 301
3 benchmarks
.717
0
ceiling
best
median
.743 Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf v1 rank 147
.743
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.557 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth v1 [reference] rank 361
.557
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.852 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective v1 [reference] rank 196
.852
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.470 V1-surround_modulation rank 322
1 benchmark
.470
0
ceiling
best
median
.470 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index v1 [reference] rank 322
.470
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.402 V1-texture_modulation rank 380
2 benchmarks
.402
0
ceiling
best
median
.316 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 375
.316
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.489 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 379
.489
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.747 Papale2025.V1-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 54
.747
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.166 Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm v1 rank 38
.166
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.300 V2 rank 82
5 benchmarks
.300
0
ceiling
best
median
.246 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-rdm v1 [reference] rank 45
.246
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.396 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-ridge v1 [reference] rank 90
.396
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.242 FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls v3 [reference] rank 267
.242
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 103 sites in V2
315 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.569 Hebart2023_fmri.V2-ridgecv v3 rank 72
.569
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.047 Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm v1 rank 162
.047
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.317 V4 rank 62
10 benchmarks
.317
0
ceiling
best
median
.198 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-rdm v1 [reference] rank 45
.198
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.363 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-ridge v1 [reference] rank 80
.363
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.295 Hebart2023_fmri.V4-ridgecv v3 rank 54
.295
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.022 MajajHong2015public.V4-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 48
.022
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.526 MajajHong2015.V4-pls v4 [reference] rank 119
.526
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in V4
2560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.501 Papale2025.V4-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 78
.501
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.561 Sanghavi2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 160
.561
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 47 sites in V4
5760 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.467 SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 156
.467
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 50 sites in V4
4916 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.232 SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 61
.232
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 46 sites in V4
300 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.000 Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm v1 rank 258
.000
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.350 IT rank 19
13 benchmarks
.350
0
ceiling
best
median
.380 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-rdm v1 [reference] rank 9
.380
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.407 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-ridge v1 [reference] rank 83
.407
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.326 Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm v1 rank 77
.326
0
ceiling
best
median

27 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.238 Gifford2022.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 63
.238
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.344 Hebart2023_fmri.IT-ridgecv v3 rank 7
.344
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.433 MajajHong2015.IT-pls v4 [reference] rank 174
.433
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 168 sites in IT
2560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.110 MajajHong2015public.IT-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 20
.110
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.520 Papale2025.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 74
.520
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.451 Sanghavi2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 214
.451
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in IT
5760 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.394 SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 280
.394
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 26 sites in IT
4916 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.282 SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 300
.282
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 29 sites in IT
300 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.674 Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm v1 rank 24
.674
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.386 behavior_vision rank 79
43 benchmarks
.386
0
ceiling
best
median
.512 Rajalingham2018-i2n v2 [reference] rank 156
.512
0
ceiling
best
median
match-to-sample task
240 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.445 Geirhos2021-error_consistency [reference] rank 45
17 benchmarks
.445
0
ceiling
best
median
.866 Geirhos2021colour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 3
.866
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.503 Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 50
.503
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.325 Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 53
.325
0
ceiling
best
median

1280 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.158 Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 53
.158
0
ceiling
best
median

160 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.482 Geirhos2021eidolonI-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 76
.482
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.588 Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 37
.588
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.424 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 84
.424
0
ceiling
best
median

480 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.633 Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 27
.633
0
ceiling
best
median

560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.175 Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 47
.175
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.379 Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 54
.379
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.350 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 46
.350
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.378 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 46
.378
0
ceiling
best
median

560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.255 Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 61
.255
0
ceiling
best
median

960 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.767 Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 45
.767
0
ceiling
best
median

160 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.247 Geirhos2021sketch-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 45
.247
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.409 Geirhos2021stylized-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 82
.409
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.617 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 24
.617
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.276 Baker2022 rank 117
3 benchmarks
.276
0
ceiling
best
median
.029 Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 156
.029
0
ceiling
best
median

716 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.798 Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 30
.798
0
ceiling
best
median

716 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.000 Baker2022inverted-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 59
.000
0
ceiling
best
median

360 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.131 BMD2024 rank 153
4 benchmarks
.131
0
ceiling
best
median
.083 BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 182
.083
0
ceiling
best
median

100 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.137 BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 110
.137
0
ceiling
best
median

100 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.124 BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 150
.124
0
ceiling
best
median

100 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.178 BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 108
.178
0
ceiling
best
median

100 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.438 Ferguson2024 [reference] rank 157
14 benchmarks
.438
0
ceiling
best
median
.632 Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 45
.632
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.706 Ferguson2024color-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 131
.706
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.145 Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 219
.145
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.037 Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 219
.037
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.195 Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 158
.195
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.346 Ferguson2024half-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 176
.346
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.335 Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 78
.335
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.113 Ferguson2024lle-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 233
.113
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024llh-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.141 Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 204
.141
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.326 Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 142
.326
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.155 Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 256
.155
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.242 Hebart2023-match v1 rank 157
.242
0
ceiling
best
median

1854 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.610 Maniquet2024 rank 96
2 benchmarks
.610
0
ceiling
best
median
.480 Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity v1 [reference] rank 142
.480
0
ceiling
best
median

13600 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.741 Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency v1 [reference] rank 12
.741
0
ceiling
best
median

13600 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.434 Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity v1 rank 73
.434
0
ceiling
best
median

22560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.384 engineering_vision rank 113
25 benchmarks
.384
0
ceiling
best
median
.729 ImageNet-top1 v1 [reference] rank 103
.729
0
ceiling
best
median

50000 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.420 ImageNet-C-top1 [reference] rank 87
4 benchmarks
.420
0
ceiling
best
median
.376 ImageNet-C-noise-top1 v2 [reference] rank 86
.376
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.340 ImageNet-C-blur-top1 v2 [reference] rank 107
.340
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.488 ImageNet-C-weather-top1 v2 [reference] rank 61
.488
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.477 ImageNet-C-digital-top1 v2 [reference] rank 107
.477
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.585 Geirhos2021-top1 [reference] rank 94
17 benchmarks
.585
0
ceiling
best
median
.972 Geirhos2021colour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 109
.972
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.804 Geirhos2021contrast-top1 v1 [reference] rank 133
.804
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.201 Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1 v1 [reference] rank 166
.201
0
ceiling
best
median

1280 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.331 Geirhos2021edge-top1 v1 [reference] rank 73
.331
0
ceiling
best
median

160 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.439 Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1 v1 [reference] rank 245
.439
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.508 Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 167
.508
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.469 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 208
.469
0
ceiling
best
median

480 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.946 Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 118
.946
0
ceiling
best
median

560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.544 Geirhos2021highpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 53
.544
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.451 Geirhos2021lowpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 110
.451
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.713 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1 v1 [reference] rank 44
.713
0
ceiling
best
median

640 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.836 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 48
.836
0
ceiling
best
median

560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.704 Geirhos2021rotation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 107
.704
0
ceiling
best
median

960 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.475 Geirhos2021silhouette-top1 v1 [reference] rank 169
.475
0
ceiling
best
median

160 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.638 Geirhos2021sketch-top1 v1 [reference] rank 105
.638
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.414 Geirhos2021stylized-top1 v1 [reference] rank 99
.414
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.508 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1 v1 [reference] rank 92
.508
0
ceiling
best
median

800 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.184 Hermann2020 [reference] rank 232
2 benchmarks
.184
0
ceiling
best
median
.213 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias v1 [reference] rank 248
.213
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.154 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match v1 [reference] rank 184
.154
0
ceiling
best
median
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_model
model = load_model("convnext_femto_ols:d1_in1k")
model.start_task(...)
model.start_recording(...)
model.look_at(...)

Brain Encoding Response Generator (BERG)

Through the BERG you can easily generate neural responses to images of your choice using any Brain-Score vision model.

For more information on how to use BERG, see the documentation and tutorial.

Benchmarks bibtex

@article{allen_massive_2022,
    title = {A massive 7T fMRI dataset to bridge cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence},
    volume = {25},
    issn = {1097-6256},
    doi = {10.1038/s41593-021-00962-x},
    journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
    author = {Allen, Emily J. and St-Yves, Ghislain and Wu, Yihan and Breedlove, Jesse L.
              and Prince, Jacob S. and Dowdle, Logan T. and Nau, Matthias and Caron, Brad
              and Pestilli, Franco and Charest, Ian and Hutchinson, J. Benjamin
              and Naselaris, Thomas and Kay, Kendrick},
    year = {2022},
    pages = {116--126},
}
        @Article{Freeman2013,
                author={Freeman, Jeremy
                and Ziemba, Corey M.
                and Heeger, David J.
                and Simoncelli, Eero P.
                and Movshon, J. Anthony},
                title={A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates},
                journal={Nature Neuroscience},
                year={2013},
                month={Jul},
                day={01},
                volume={16},
                number={7},
                pages={974-981},
                abstract={The authors examined neuronal responses in V1 and V2 to synthetic texture stimuli that replicate higher-order statistical dependencies found in natural images. V2, but not V1, responded differentially to these textures, in both macaque (single neurons) and human (fMRI). Human detection of naturalistic structure in the same images was predicted by V2 responses, suggesting a role for V2 in representing natural image structure.},
                issn={1546-1726},
                doi={10.1038/nn.3402},
                url={https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3402}
                }
        @article {Marques2021.03.01.433495,
	author = {Marques, Tiago and Schrimpf, Martin and DiCarlo, James J.},
	title = {Multi-scale hierarchical neural network models that bridge from single neurons in the primate primary visual cortex to object recognition behavior},
	elocation-id = {2021.03.01.433495},
	year = {2021},
	doi = {10.1101/2021.03.01.433495},
	publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
	abstract = {Primate visual object recognition relies on the representations in cortical areas at the top of the ventral stream that are computed by a complex, hierarchical network of neural populations. While recent work has created reasonably accurate image-computable hierarchical neural network models of those neural stages, those models do not yet bridge between the properties of individual neurons and the overall emergent behavior of the ventral stream. One reason we cannot yet do this is that individual artificial neurons in multi-stage models have not been shown to be functionally similar to individual biological neurons. Here, we took an important first step by building and evaluating hundreds of hierarchical neural network models in how well their artificial single neurons approximate macaque primary visual cortical (V1) neurons. We found that single neurons in certain models are surprisingly similar to their biological counterparts and that the distributions of single neuron properties, such as those related to orientation and spatial frequency tuning, approximately match those in macaque V1. Critically, we observed that hierarchical models with V1 stages that better match macaque V1 at the single neuron level are also more aligned with human object recognition behavior. Finally, we show that an optimized classical neuroscientific model of V1 is more functionally similar to primate V1 than all of the tested multi-stage models, suggesting room for further model improvements with tangible payoffs in closer alignment to human behavior. These results provide the first multi-stage, multi-scale models that allow our field to ask precisely how the specific properties of individual V1 neurons relate to recognition behavior.HighlightsImage-computable hierarchical neural network models can be naturally extended to create hierarchical {\textquotedblleft}brain models{\textquotedblright} that allow direct comparison with biological neural networks at multiple scales {\textendash} from single neurons, to population of neurons, to behavior.Single neurons in some of these hierarchical brain models are functionally similar to single neurons in macaque primate visual cortex (V1)Some hierarchical brain models have processing stages in which the entire distribution of artificial neuron properties closely matches the biological distributions of those same properties in macaque V1Hierarchical brain models whose V1 processing stages better match the macaque V1 stage also tend to be more aligned with human object recognition behavior at their output stageCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.},
	URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.03.01.433495},
	eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.03.01.433495.full.pdf},
	journal = {bioRxiv}
}
        @article{Cavanaugh2002,
            author = {Cavanaugh, James R. and Bair, Wyeth and Movshon, J. A.},
            doi = {10.1152/jn.00692.2001},
            isbn = {0022-3077 (Print) 0022-3077 (Linking)},
            issn = {0022-3077},
            journal = {Journal of Neurophysiology},
            mendeley-groups = {Benchmark effects/Done,Benchmark effects/*Surround Suppression},
            number = {5},
            pages = {2530--2546},
            pmid = {12424292},
            title = {{Nature and Interaction of Signals From the Receptive Field Center and Surround in Macaque V1 Neurons}},
            url = {http://www.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/jn.00692.2001},
            volume = {88},
            year = {2002}
            }
        @article{Freeman2013,
            author = {Freeman, Jeremy and Ziemba, Corey M. and Heeger, David J. and Simoncelli, E. P. and Movshon, J. A.},
            doi = {10.1038/nn.3402},
            issn = {10976256},
            journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
            number = {7},
            pages = {974--981},
            pmid = {23685719},
            publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
            title = {{A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates}},
            url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3402},
            volume = {16},
            year = {2013}
            }
        @article{Schiller1976,
            author = {Schiller, P. H. and Finlay, B. L. and Volman, S. F.},
            doi = {10.1152/jn.1976.39.6.1352},
            issn = {0022-3077},
            journal = {Journal of neurophysiology},
            number = {6},
            pages = {1334--1351},
            pmid = {825624},
            title = {{Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. III. Spatial Frequency}},
            url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/825624},
            volume = {39},
            year = {1976}
            }
        @article{papale_extensive_2025,
	title = {An extensive dataset of spiking activity to reveal the syntax of the ventral stream},
	volume = {113},
	issn = {08966273},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S089662732400881X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.neuron.2024.12.003},
	journal = {Neuron},
	author = {Papale, Paolo and Wang, Feng and Self, Matthew W. and Roelfsema, Pieter R.},
	year = {2025},
}
        @inproceedings{santurkar2019computer,
    title={Computer Vision with a Single (Robust) Classifier},
    author={Shibani Santurkar and Dimitris Tsipras and Brandon Tran and Andrew Ilyas and Logan Engstrom and Aleksander Madry},
    booktitle={ArXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09453},
    year={2019}
}
        @article{muzellec_reverse_2026,
      title = {Reverse predictivity for bidirectional comparison of neural networks and biological brains},
      volume = {8},
      issn = {2522-5839},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-026-01204-0},
      doi = {10.1038/s42256-026-01204-0},
      number = {3},
      journal = {Nature Machine Intelligence},
      author = {Muzellec, Sabine and Kar, Kohitij},
      month = mar,
      year = {2026},
      pages = {474--488},
}
        @article {Majaj13402,
            author = {Majaj, Najib J. and Hong, Ha and Solomon, Ethan A. and DiCarlo, James J.},
            title = {Simple Learned Weighted Sums of Inferior Temporal Neuronal Firing Rates Accurately Predict Human Core Object Recognition Performance},
            volume = {35},
            number = {39},
            pages = {13402--13418},
            year = {2015},
            doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5181-14.2015},
            publisher = {Society for Neuroscience},
            abstract = {To go beyond qualitative models of the biological substrate of object recognition, we ask: can a single ventral stream neuronal linking hypothesis quantitatively account for core object recognition performance over a broad range of tasks? We measured human performance in 64 object recognition tests using thousands of challenging images that explore shape similarity and identity preserving object variation. We then used multielectrode arrays to measure neuronal population responses to those same images in visual areas V4 and inferior temporal (IT) cortex of monkeys and simulated V1 population responses. We tested leading candidate linking hypotheses and control hypotheses, each postulating how ventral stream neuronal responses underlie object recognition behavior. Specifically, for each hypothesis, we computed the predicted performance on the 64 tests and compared it with the measured pattern of human performance. All tested hypotheses based on low- and mid-level visually evoked activity (pixels, V1, and V4) were very poor predictors of the human behavioral pattern. However, simple learned weighted sums of distributed average IT firing rates exactly predicted the behavioral pattern. More elaborate linking hypotheses relying on IT trial-by-trial correlational structure, finer IT temporal codes, or ones that strictly respect the known spatial substructures of IT ({	extquotedblleft}face patches{	extquotedblright}) did not improve predictive power. Although these results do not reject those more elaborate hypotheses, they suggest a simple, sufficient quantitative model: each object recognition task is learned from the spatially distributed mean firing rates (100 ms) of \~{}60,000 IT neurons and is executed as a simple weighted sum of those firing rates.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We sought to go beyond qualitative models of visual object recognition and determine whether a single neuronal linking hypothesis can quantitatively account for core object recognition behavior. To achieve this, we designed a database of images for evaluating object recognition performance. We used multielectrode arrays to characterize hundreds of neurons in the visual ventral stream of nonhuman primates and measured the object recognition performance of \>100 human observers. Remarkably, we found that simple learned weighted sums of firing rates of neurons in monkey inferior temporal (IT) cortex accurately predicted human performance. Although previous work led us to expect that IT would outperform V4, we were surprised by the quantitative precision with which simple IT-based linking hypotheses accounted for human behavior.},
            issn = {0270-6474},
            URL = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402},
            eprint = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402.full.pdf},
            journal = {Journal of Neuroscience}}
        @misc{Sanghavi_DiCarlo_2021,
  title={Sanghavi2020},
  url={osf.io/chwdk},
  DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/CHWDK},
  publisher={OSF},
  author={Sanghavi, Sachi and DiCarlo, James J},
  year={2021},
  month={Nov}
}
        @misc{Sanghavi_Jozwik_DiCarlo_2021,
  title={SanghaviJozwik2020},
  url={osf.io/fhy36},
  DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/FHY36},
  publisher={OSF},
  author={Sanghavi, Sachi and Jozwik, Kamila M and DiCarlo, James J},
  year={2021},
  month={Nov}
}
        @misc{Sanghavi_Murty_DiCarlo_2021,
  title={SanghaviMurty2020},
  url={osf.io/fchme},
  DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/FCHME},
  publisher={OSF},
  author={Sanghavi, Sachi and Murty, N A R and DiCarlo, James J},
  year={2021},
  month={Nov}
}
        @article{gifford_large_2022,
	title = {A large and rich {EEG} dataset for modeling human visual object recognition},
	volume = {264},
	issn = {10538119},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1053811922008758},
	doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119754},
	journal = {NeuroImage},
	author = {Gifford, Alessandro T. and Dwivedi, Kshitij and Roig, Gemma and Cichy, Radoslaw M.},
	year = {2022},
}
        @Article{Kar2019,
                                                    author={Kar, Kohitij
                                                    and Kubilius, Jonas
                                                    and Schmidt, Kailyn
                                                    and Issa, Elias B.
                                                    and DiCarlo, James J.},
                                                    title={Evidence that recurrent circuits are critical to the ventral stream's execution of core object recognition behavior},
                                                    journal={Nature Neuroscience},
                                                    year={2019},
                                                    month={Jun},
                                                    day={01},
                                                    volume={22},
                                                    number={6},
                                                    pages={974-983},
                                                    abstract={Non-recurrent deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are currently the best at modeling core object recognition, a behavior that is supported by the densely recurrent primate ventral stream, culminating in the inferior temporal (IT) cortex. If recurrence is critical to this behavior, then primates should outperform feedforward-only deep CNNs for images that require additional recurrent processing beyond the feedforward IT response. Here we first used behavioral methods to discover hundreds of these `challenge' images. Second, using large-scale electrophysiology, we observed that behaviorally sufficient object identity solutions emerged {	extasciitilde}30{	hinspace}ms later in the IT cortex for challenge images compared with primate performance-matched `control' images. Third, these behaviorally critical late-phase IT response patterns were poorly predicted by feedforward deep CNN activations. Notably, very-deep CNNs and shallower recurrent CNNs better predicted these late IT responses, suggesting that there is a functional equivalence between additional nonlinear transformations and recurrence. Beyond arguing that recurrent circuits are critical for rapid object identification, our results provide strong constraints for future recurrent model development.},
                                                    issn={1546-1726},
                                                    doi={10.1038/s41593-019-0392-5},
                                                    url={https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0392-5}
                                                    }
        @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}
            }
        @article{geirhos2021partial,
              title={Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision},
              author={Geirhos, Robert and Narayanappa, Kantharaju and Mitzkus, Benjamin and Thieringer, Tizian and Bethge, Matthias and Wichmann, Felix A and Brendel, Wieland},
              journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
              volume={34},
              year={2021},
              url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=QkljT4mrfs}
        }
        @article{BAKER2022104913,
                title = {Deep learning models fail to capture the configural nature of human shape perception},
                journal = {iScience},
                volume = {25},
                number = {9},
                pages = {104913},
                year = {2022},
                issn = {2589-0042},
                doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104913},
                url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222011853},
                author = {Nicholas Baker and James H. Elder},
                keywords = {Biological sciences, Neuroscience, Sensory neuroscience},
                abstract = {Summary
                A hallmark of human object perception is sensitivity to the holistic configuration of the local shape features of an object. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) are currently the dominant models for object recognition processing in the visual cortex, but do they capture this configural sensitivity? To answer this question, we employed a dataset of animal silhouettes and created a variant of this dataset that disrupts the configuration of each object while preserving local features. While human performance was impacted by this manipulation, DCNN performance was not, indicating insensitivity to object configuration. Modifications to training and architecture to make networks more brain-like did not lead to configural processing, and none of the networks were able to accurately predict trial-by-trial human object judgements. We speculate that to match human configural sensitivity, networks must be trained to solve a broader range of object tasks beyond category recognition.}
        }
        @misc{ferguson_ngo_lee_dicarlo_schrimpf_2024,
         title={How Well is Visual Search Asymmetry predicted by a Binary-Choice, Rapid, Accuracy-based Visual-search, Oddball-detection (BRAVO) task?},
         url={osf.io/5ba3n},
         DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/5BA3N},
         publisher={OSF},
         author={Ferguson, Michael E, Jr and Ngo, Jerry and Lee, Michael and DiCarlo, James and Schrimpf, Martin},
         year={2024},
         month={Jun}
}
        @article {Maniquet2024.04.02.587669,
	author = {Maniquet, Tim and de Beeck, Hans Op and Costantino, Andrea Ivan},
	title = {Recurrent issues with deep neural network models of visual recognition},
	elocation-id = {2024.04.02.587669},
	year = {2024},
	doi = {10.1101/2024.04.02.587669},
	publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
	URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/10/2024.04.02.587669},
	eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/10/2024.04.02.587669.full.pdf},
	journal = {bioRxiv}
}
        @INPROCEEDINGS{5206848,  
                                                author={J. {Deng} and W. {Dong} and R. {Socher} and L. {Li} and  {Kai Li} and  {Li Fei-Fei}},  
                                                booktitle={2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition},   
                                                title={ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database},   
                                                year={2009},  
                                                volume={},  
                                                number={},  
                                                pages={248-255},
                                            }
        @ARTICLE{Hendrycks2019-di,
   title         = "Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions
                    and Perturbations",
   author        = "Hendrycks, Dan and Dietterich, Thomas",
   abstract      = "In this paper we establish rigorous benchmarks for image
                    classifier robustness. Our first benchmark, ImageNet-C,
                    standardizes and expands the corruption robustness topic,
                    while showing which classifiers are preferable in
                    safety-critical applications. Then we propose a new dataset
                    called ImageNet-P which enables researchers to benchmark a
                    classifier's robustness to common perturbations. Unlike
                    recent robustness research, this benchmark evaluates
                    performance on common corruptions and perturbations not
                    worst-case adversarial perturbations. We find that there are
                    negligible changes in relative corruption robustness from
                    AlexNet classifiers to ResNet classifiers. Afterward we
                    discover ways to enhance corruption and perturbation
                    robustness. We even find that a bypassed adversarial defense
                    provides substantial common perturbation robustness.
                    Together our benchmarks may aid future work toward networks
                    that robustly generalize.",
   month         =  mar,
   year          =  2019,
   archivePrefix = "arXiv",
   primaryClass  = "cs.LG",
   eprint        = "1903.12261",
   url           = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12261"
}
        @article{hermann2020origins,
              title={The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks},
              author={Hermann, Katherine and Chen, Ting and Kornblith, Simon},
              journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
              volume={33},
              pages={19000--19015},
              year={2020},
              url={https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/db5f9f42a7157abe65bb145000b5871a-Abstract.html}
        }
        

Layer Commitment

Region Layer
V1 stages.2.blocks.0.mlp.fc1
V2 stages.2.blocks.1.conv_dw
V4 stages.2.downsample.1
IT stages.3.blocks.0.norm

Visual Angle

None degrees