Scores on benchmarks

Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.
.329 average_vision rank 84
99 benchmarks
.329
0
ceiling
best
median
.341 neural_vision rank 42
56 benchmarks
.341
0
ceiling
best
median
.494 V1 rank 2
28 benchmarks
.494
0
ceiling
best
median
.256 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-rdm v1 [reference] rank 27
.256
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.376 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-ridge v1 [reference] rank 93
.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
.330 FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls v3 [reference] rank 17
.330
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
.639 Hebart2023_fmri.V1-ridgecv v3 rank 6
.639
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.810 Marques2020 [reference] rank 4
22 benchmarks
.810
0
ceiling
best
median
.866 V1-orientation rank 180
7 benchmarks
.866
0
ceiling
best
median
.988 Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or v1 rank 27
.988
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
.838 Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance v1 rank 182
.838
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
.843 Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio v1 rank 190
.843
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
.888 Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff v1 rank 180
.888
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
.801 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth v1 rank 283
.801
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
.907 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective v1 rank 255
.907
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
.800 Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio v1 rank 210
.800
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
.791 V1-receptive_field_size rank 72
2 benchmarks
.791
0
ceiling
best
median
.831 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field v1 [reference] rank 74
.831
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
.752 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter v1 [reference] rank 63
.752
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
.874 V1-response_magnitude rank 185
3 benchmarks
.874
0
ceiling
best
median
.822 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise v1 [reference] rank 159
.822
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
.814 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture v1 [reference] rank 254
.814
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
.986 Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc v1 rank 36
.986
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
.756 V1-response_selectivity rank 33
4 benchmarks
.756
0
ceiling
best
median
.835 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity v1 [reference] rank 63
.835
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
.863 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness v1 [reference] rank 25
.863
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
.913 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio v1 [reference] rank 42
.913
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
.412 Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio v1 rank 279
.412
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
.816 V1-spatial_frequency rank 162
3 benchmarks
.816
0
ceiling
best
median
.852 Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf v1 rank 43
.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
.596 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth v1 [reference] rank 364
.596
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
1.0 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
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
.840 V1-surround_modulation rank 26
1 benchmark
.840
0
ceiling
best
median
.840 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index v1 [reference] rank 26
.840
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
.727 V1-texture_modulation rank 83
2 benchmarks
.727
0
ceiling
best
median
.683 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 82
.683
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
.771 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 102
.771
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
.817 Papale2025.V1-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 4
.817
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.230 Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm v1 rank 25
.230
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
.289 V2 rank 89
5 benchmarks
.289
0
ceiling
best
median
.227 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-rdm v1 [reference] rank 62
.227
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.391 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-ridge v1 [reference] rank 92
.391
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.301 FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls v3 [reference] rank 10
.301
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
.497 Hebart2023_fmri.V2-ridgecv v3 rank 102
.497
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.031 Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm v1 rank 203
.031
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 V4 rank 75
10 benchmarks
.300
0
ceiling
best
median
.146 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-rdm v1 [reference] rank 72
.146
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 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-ridge v1 [reference] rank 104
.242
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.252 Hebart2023_fmri.V4-ridgecv v3 rank 97
.252
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.058 MajajHong2015public.V4-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 12
.058
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.481 MajajHong2015.V4-pls v4 [reference] rank 370
.481
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
.538 Papale2025.V4-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 57
.538
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.491 Sanghavi2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 368
.491
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
.431 SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 289
.431
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
.204 SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 191
.204
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
.153 Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm v1 rank 21
.153
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
.283 IT rank 87
13 benchmarks
.283
0
ceiling
best
median
.237 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-rdm v1 [reference] rank 82
.237
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.370 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-ridge v1 [reference] rank 93
.370
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.262 Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm v1 rank 125
.262
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
.239 Gifford2022.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 60
.239
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.201 Hebart2023_fmri.IT-ridgecv v3 rank 99
.201
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.399 MajajHong2015.IT-pls v4 [reference] rank 304
.399
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
.125 MajajHong2015public.IT-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 19
.125
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.502 Papale2025.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 82
.502
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.440 Sanghavi2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 265
.440
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
.482 SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 11
.482
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
.332 SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 124
.332
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
.084 Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm v1 rank 234
.084
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 behavior_vision rank 140
43 benchmarks
.317
0
ceiling
best
median
.515 Rajalingham2018-i2n v2 [reference] rank 149
.515
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
.102 Geirhos2021-error_consistency [reference] rank 236
17 benchmarks
.102
0
ceiling
best
median
.104 Geirhos2021colour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 243
.104
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
.113 Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 202
.113
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
.131 Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 239
.131
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
.055 Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 246
.055
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
.242 Geirhos2021eidolonI-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 205
.242
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
.226 Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 204
.226
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
.219 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 210
.219
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
.034 Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 273
.034
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
.055 Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 168
.055
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
.103 Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 205
.103
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
.029 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 270
.029
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
.062 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 209
.062
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
.058 Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 244
.058
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
.149 Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 255
.149
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
.030 Geirhos2021sketch-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 278
.030
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
.084 Geirhos2021stylized-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 265
.084
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
.038 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 261
.038
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
.470 Baker2022 rank 72
3 benchmarks
.470
0
ceiling
best
median
.960 Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 16
.960
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
.448 Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 105
.448
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 62
.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
.201 BMD2024 rank 71
4 benchmarks
.201
0
ceiling
best
median
.104 BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 147
.104
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
.149 BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 104
.149
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
.269 BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 41
.269
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
.283 BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 36
.283
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
.380 Ferguson2024 [reference] rank 216
14 benchmarks
.380
0
ceiling
best
median
.472 Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 90
.472
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
.218 Ferguson2024color-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 250
.218
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
.516 Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 98
.516
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
.025 Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 247
.025
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
.630 Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 69
.630
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
.064 Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 275
.064
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
.383 Ferguson2024half-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 174
.383
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
.137 Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 142
.137
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
.825 Ferguson2024lle-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 53
.825
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
.164 Ferguson2024llh-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 230
.164
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
.231 Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 169
.231
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
.102 Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 242
.102
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
.551 Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 124
.551
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 Ferguson2024tilted_line-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
.352 Hebart2023-match v1 rank 55
.352
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
.371 Maniquet2024 rank 256
2 benchmarks
.371
0
ceiling
best
median
.305 Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity v1 [reference] rank 227
.305
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
.437 Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency v1 [reference] rank 247
.437
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
.143 Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity v1 rank 174
.143
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
.397 engineering_vision rank 94
25 benchmarks
.397
0
ceiling
best
median
.533 ImageNet-top1 v1 [reference] rank 238
.533
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
.300 ImageNet-C-top1 [reference] rank 150
4 benchmarks
.300
0
ceiling
best
median
.228 ImageNet-C-noise-top1 v2 [reference] rank 162
.228
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.312 ImageNet-C-blur-top1 v2 [reference] rank 124
.312
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.269 ImageNet-C-weather-top1 v2 [reference] rank 189
.269
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.391 ImageNet-C-digital-top1 v2 [reference] rank 149
.391
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.089 ObjectNet-top1 v1 [reference] rank 102
.089
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.522 Geirhos2021-top1 [reference] rank 175
17 benchmarks
.522
0
ceiling
best
median
.902 Geirhos2021colour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 221
.902
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
.303 Geirhos2021contrast-top1 v1 [reference] rank 260
.303
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
.459 Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1 v1 [reference] rank 13
.459
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
.281 Geirhos2021edge-top1 v1 [reference] rank 136
.281
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
.625 Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1 v1 [reference] rank 5
.625
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
.539 Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 112
.539
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
.596 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 61
.596
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
.839 Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 233
.839
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
.261 Geirhos2021highpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 232
.261
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
.454 Geirhos2021lowpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 107
.454
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
.606 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1 v1 [reference] rank 144
.606
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
.609 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 199
.609
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
.523 Geirhos2021rotation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 233
.523
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
.600 Geirhos2021silhouette-top1 v1 [reference] rank 37
.600
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
.604 Geirhos2021sketch-top1 v1 [reference] rank 149
.604
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
.408 Geirhos2021stylized-top1 v1 [reference] rank 115
.408
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
.269 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1 v1 [reference] rank 239
.269
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
.543 Hermann2020 [reference] rank 16
2 benchmarks
.543
0
ceiling
best
median
.654 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias v1 [reference] rank 19
.654
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.432 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match v1 [reference] rank 13
.432
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("resnet-50-robust")
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"
}
        @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/nips/BarbuMALWGTK19,
                                                    author    = {Andrei Barbu and
                                                                David Mayo and
                                                                Julian Alverio and
                                                                William Luo and
                                                                Christopher Wang and
                                                                Dan Gutfreund and
                                                                Josh Tenenbaum and
                                                                Boris Katz},
                                                    title     = {ObjectNet: {A} large-scale bias-controlled dataset for pushing the
                                                                limits of object recognition models},
                                                    booktitle = {NeurIPS 2019},
                                                    pages     = {9448--9458},
                                                    year      = {2019},
                                                    url       = {https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/97af07a14cacba681feacf3012730892-Abstract.html},
                                                    }
        @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 layer3.0.downsample.0
V2 layer4.0.downsample.0
V4 layer3.0.downsample.0
IT layer4.0.downsample.0

Visual Angle

8 degrees