Scores on benchmarks
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.| .215 |
average_vision
rank 186
99 benchmarks |
|
| .135 |
neural_vision
rank 193
56 benchmarks |
|
| .135 |
V1
rank 313
28 benchmarks |
|
| .202 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 390
|
|
|
recordings from
102
sites in
V1
315 images
|
||
| .673 |
Marques2020
[reference]
rank 319
22 benchmarks |
|
| .795 |
V1-orientation
rank 307
7 benchmarks |
|
| .961 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or
v1
rank 161
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .649 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance
v1
rank 357
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .848 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio
v1
rank 185
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .861 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff
v1
rank 208
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .641 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth
v1
rank 362
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .986 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective
v1
rank 97
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .622 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio
v1
rank 345
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .826 |
V1-receptive_field_size
rank 48
2 benchmarks |
|
| .844 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field
v1
[reference]
rank 64
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .808 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter
v1
[reference]
rank 34
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .700 |
V1-response_magnitude
rank 359
3 benchmarks |
|
| .586 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise
v1
[reference]
rank 358
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .720 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture
v1
[reference]
rank 333
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .794 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc
v1
rank 376
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .578 |
V1-response_selectivity
rank 335
4 benchmarks |
|
| .571 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity
v1
[reference]
rank 356
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .645 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness
v1
[reference]
rank 261
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .899 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio
v1
[reference]
rank 52
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .198 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio
v1
rank 389
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .722 |
V1-spatial_frequency
rank 298
3 benchmarks |
|
| .843 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf
v1
rank 47
|
|
|
2112 images
|
||
| .550 |
Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth
v1
[reference]
rank 371
|
|
|
2112 images
|
||
| .773 |
Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective
v1
[reference]
rank 281
|
|
|
2112 images
|
||
| .685 |
V1-surround_modulation
rank 153
1 benchmark |
|
| .685 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index
v1
[reference]
rank 153
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .404 |
V1-texture_modulation
rank 387
2 benchmarks |
|
| .242 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index
v1
[reference]
rank 392
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .567 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index
v1
[reference]
rank 366
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .066 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm
v1
rank 102
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .064 |
V2
rank 177
5 benchmarks |
|
| .265 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 101
|
|
|
recordings from
103
sites in
V2
315 images
|
||
| .052 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm
v1
rank 161
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .183 |
V4
rank 144
10 benchmarks |
|
| .521 |
MajajHong2015.V4-pls
v4
[reference]
rank 158
|
|
|
recordings from
88
sites in
V4
2560 images
|
||
| .549 |
Sanghavi2020.V4-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 234
|
|
|
recordings from
47
sites in
V4
5760 images
|
||
| .470 |
SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 132
|
|
|
recordings from
50
sites in
V4
4916 images
|
||
| .206 |
SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 178
|
|
|
recordings from
46
sites in
V4
300 images
|
||
| .079 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm
v1
rank 57
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .158 |
IT
rank 195
13 benchmarks |
|
| .265 |
Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm
v1
rank 117
|
|
|
27 images
|
||
| .444 |
MajajHong2015.IT-pls
v4
[reference]
rank 106
|
|
|
recordings from
168
sites in
IT
2560 images
|
||
| .465 |
Sanghavi2020.IT-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 120
|
|
|
recordings from
88
sites in
IT
5760 images
|
||
| .424 |
SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 203
|
|
|
recordings from
26
sites in
IT
4916 images
|
||
| .339 |
SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 96
|
|
|
recordings from
29
sites in
IT
300 images
|
||
| .114 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm
v1
rank 220
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .295 |
behavior_vision
rank 163
43 benchmarks |
|
| .180 |
Geirhos2021-error_consistency
[reference]
rank 178
17 benchmarks |
|
| .214 |
Geirhos2021colour-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 204
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .140 |
Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 176
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .171 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 171
|
|
|
1280 images
|
||
| .084 |
Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 150
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .276 |
Geirhos2021eidolonI-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 189
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .267 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 185
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .258 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 187
|
|
|
480 images
|
||
| .251 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 171
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .050 |
Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 190
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .186 |
Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 128
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .049 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 242
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .040 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 236
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .140 |
Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 143
|
|
|
960 images
|
||
| .437 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 154
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .105 |
Geirhos2021sketch-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 145
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .278 |
Geirhos2021stylized-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 142
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .121 |
Geirhos2021uniformnoise-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 165
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .258 |
Baker2022
rank 132
3 benchmarks |
|
| .287 |
Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 130
|
|
|
716 images
|
||
| .485 |
Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 94
|
|
|
716 images
|
||
| .000 |
Baker2022inverted-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 62
|
|
|
360 images
|
||
| .215 |
BMD2024
rank 54
4 benchmarks |
|
| .146 |
BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 110
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .216 |
BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 37
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .279 |
BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 37
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .220 |
BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 66
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .351 |
Ferguson2024
[reference]
rank 235
14 benchmarks |
|
| .389 |
Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 107
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .358 |
Ferguson2024color-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 206
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .237 |
Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 179
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .199 |
Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 107
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .037 |
Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 264
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .706 |
Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 78
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .383 |
Ferguson2024half-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 169
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .888 |
Ferguson2024llh-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 48
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .836 |
Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 33
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .075 |
Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 251
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .275 |
Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 198
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .539 |
Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 164
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .330 |
Hebart2023-match
v1
rank 91
|
|
|
1854 images
|
||
| .701 |
Maniquet2024
rank 61
2 benchmarks |
|
| .677 |
Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity
v1
[reference]
rank 73
|
|
|
13600 images
|
||
| .724 |
Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 27
|
|
|
13600 images
|
||
| .326 |
Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity
v1
rank 112
|
|
|
22560 images
|
||
| .169 |
engineering_vision
rank 265
25 benchmarks |
|
| .138 |
ImageNet-C-top1
[reference]
rank 239
4 benchmarks |
|
| .214 |
ImageNet-C-blur-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 184
|
|
|
||
| .339 |
ImageNet-C-digital-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 185
|
|
|
||
| .507 |
Geirhos2021-top1
[reference]
rank 199
17 benchmarks |
|
| .936 |
Geirhos2021colour-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 192
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .668 |
Geirhos2021contrast-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 183
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .199 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 177
|
|
|
1280 images
|
||
| .294 |
Geirhos2021edge-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 118
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .448 |
Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 243
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .477 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 209
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .452 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 234
|
|
|
480 images
|
||
| .936 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 146
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .367 |
Geirhos2021highpass-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 169
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .349 |
Geirhos2021lowpass-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 217
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .563 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 201
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .639 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 178
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .624 |
Geirhos2021rotation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 193
|
|
|
960 images
|
||
| .394 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 226
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .583 |
Geirhos2021sketch-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 181
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .374 |
Geirhos2021stylized-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 176
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .319 |
Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 214
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .199 |
Hermann2020
[reference]
rank 205
2 benchmarks |
|
| .242 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias
v1
[reference]
rank 206
|
|
|
||
| .155 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match
v1
[reference]
rank 188
|
|
|
||
How to use
from brainscore_vision import load_model
model = load_model("mobilenet_v2_1_0_224")
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{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}
}
@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 {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{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{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}
}
@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}
}