Scores on benchmarks
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models..273 |
average_vision
rank 149
81 benchmarks |
|
.292 |
neural_vision
rank 167
38 benchmarks |
|
.317 |
V1
rank 270
24 benchmarks |
|
.695 |
Marques2020
[reference]
rank 224
22 benchmarks |
|
.859 |
V1-orientation
rank 170
7 benchmarks |
|
.931 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective
v1
rank 173
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.896 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance
v1
rank 60
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.841 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio
v1
rank 127
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.800 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio
v1
rank 218
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.868 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or
v1
rank 279
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.801 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff
v1
rank 257
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.874 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth
v1
rank 126
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.648 |
V1-spatial_frequency
rank 297
3 benchmarks |
|
.554 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf
v1
rank 269
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.664 |
Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth
v1
[reference]
rank 278
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.728 |
Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective
v1
[reference]
rank 253
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.620 |
V1-response_selectivity
rank 257
4 benchmarks |
|
.767 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity
v1
[reference]
rank 154
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.439 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio
v1
rank 218
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.650 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio
v1
[reference]
rank 252
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.622 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness
v1
[reference]
rank 242
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.774 |
V1-receptive_field_size
rank 73
2 benchmarks |
|
.818 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field
v1
[reference]
rank 76
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.729 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter
v1
[reference]
rank 95
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.622 |
V1-surround_modulation
rank 174
1 benchmark |
|
.622 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index
v1
[reference]
rank 174
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.482 |
V1-texture_modulation
rank 303
2 benchmarks |
|
.393 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index
v1
[reference]
rank 294
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.571 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index
v1
[reference]
rank 307
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.861 |
V1-response_magnitude
rank 176
3 benchmarks |
|
.906 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture
v1
[reference]
rank 113
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.960 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc
v1
rank 143
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.717 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise
v1
[reference]
rank 260
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.256 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 247
|
|
recordings from
102
sites in
V1
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.150 |
V2
rank 272
2 benchmarks |
|
.299 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 216
|
|
recordings from
103
sites in
V2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.384 |
V4
rank 140
5 benchmarks |
|
.481 |
SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 136
|
|
recordings from
50
sites in
V4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.640 |
Sanghavi2020.V4-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 74
|
|
recordings from
47
sites in
V4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.204 |
SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 184
|
|
recordings from
46
sites in
V4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.597 |
MajajHong2015.V4-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 47
|
|
recordings from
88
sites in
V4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.315 |
IT
rank 133
7 benchmarks |
|
.382 |
Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm
v1
rank 17
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.314 |
SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 273
|
|
recordings from
29
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.513 |
Sanghavi2020.IT-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 202
|
|
recordings from
88
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.467 |
SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls
v1
[reference]
rank 240
|
|
recordings from
26
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.530 |
MajajHong2015.IT-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 132
|
|
recordings from
168
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
X |
Kar2019-ost
v2
[reference]
rank X
|
|
recordings from
424
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.254 |
behavior_vision
rank 152
43 benchmarks |
|
.585 |
Rajalingham2018-i2n
v2
[reference]
rank 17
|
|
match-to-sample task
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.636 |
Maniquet2024
rank 57
2 benchmarks |
|
.538 |
Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity
v1
[reference]
rank 73
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.734 |
Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 11
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.470 |
Hebart2023-match
v1
rank 14
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.338 |
Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity
v1
rank 83
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
How to use
from brainscore_vision import load_model model = load_model("resnet18_imagenet21kP") model.start_task(...) model.start_recording(...) model.look_at(...)
Benchmarks bibtex
@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{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{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{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, 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} } @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_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_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 {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}} @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 {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} }