Scores on benchmarks

Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.
.105 average_vision rank 386
81 benchmarks
.105
0
ceiling
best
median
.083 neural_vision rank 424
38 benchmarks
.083
0
ceiling
best
median
.084 V1 rank 391
24 benchmarks
.084
0
ceiling
best
median
.204 Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm v1 rank 23
.204
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.048 FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls v2 [reference] rank 426
.048
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 102 sites in V1
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.073 V2 rank 418
2 benchmarks
.073
0
ceiling
best
median
.142 Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm v1 rank 47
.142
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.005 FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls v2 [reference] rank 428
.005
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 103 sites in V2
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.079 V4 rank 422
5 benchmarks
.079
0
ceiling
best
median
.144 Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm v1 rank 15
.144
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.038 SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 379
.038
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 50 sites in V4
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.114 Sanghavi2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 381
.114
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 47 sites in V4
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.021 SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 387
.021
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 46 sites in V4
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.078 MajajHong2015.V4-pls v3 [reference] rank 422
.078
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in V4
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.094 IT rank 385
7 benchmarks
.094
0
ceiling
best
median
.068 Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm v1 rank 181
.068
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.384 Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm v1 rank 76
.384
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.030 SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 385
.030
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 29 sites in IT
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.095 Sanghavi2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 386
.095
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in IT
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.056 SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 382
.056
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 26 sites in IT
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.026 MajajHong2015.IT-pls v3 [reference] rank 424
.026
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 168 sites in IT
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
X Kar2019-ost v2 [reference] rank X
X
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 424 sites in IT
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.126 behavior_vision rank 214
43 benchmarks
.126
0
ceiling
best
median
-0.010 Rajalingham2018-i2n v2 [reference] rank 440
-0.010
0
ceiling
best
median
match-to-sample task
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.071 Geirhos2021-error_consistency [reference] rank 253
17 benchmarks
.071
0
ceiling
best
median
.027 Geirhos2021colour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 272
.027
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.106 Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 200
.106
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.087 Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 264
.087
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.021 Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 288
.021
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.094 Geirhos2021eidolonI-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 262
.094
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.174 Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 222
.174
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.112 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 244
.112
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.016 Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 267
.016
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.095 Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 74
.095
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.085 Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 195
.085
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.114 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 127
.114
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 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 244
.031
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.008 Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 285
.008
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.084 Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 267
.084
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.025 Geirhos2021sketch-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 266
.025
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.047 Geirhos2021stylized-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 268
.047
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 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-error_consistency v1 [reference] rank 150
.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
.000 Baker2022 rank 158
3 benchmarks
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
.000 Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 142
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.000 Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta v1 [reference] rank 142
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
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 54
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.415 Maniquet2024 rank 145
2 benchmarks
.415
0
ceiling
best
median
.533 Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity v1 [reference] rank 76
.533
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.296 Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency v1 [reference] rank 184
.296
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 Ferguson2024 [reference] rank 158
14 benchmarks
.391
0
ceiling
best
median
.698 Ferguson2024half-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 68
.698
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.971 Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 16
.971
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.337 Ferguson2024lle-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 125
.337
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.184 Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 84
.184
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.159 Ferguson2024color-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 192
.159
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.249 Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 162
.249
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.268 Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 68
.268
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.757 Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 36
.757
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.425 Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 98
.425
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.400 Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 92
.400
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 Ferguson2024llh-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 151
.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
.121 Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 168
.121
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.120 Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 150
.120
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.539 Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 123
.539
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.029 Hebart2023-match v1 rank 206
.029
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.110 BMD2024 rank 150
4 benchmarks
.110
0
ceiling
best
median
.104 BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 126
.104
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.103 BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 145
.103
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.105 BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 144
.105
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.126 BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance v1 rank 107
.126
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.006 Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity v1 rank 191
.006
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.082 engineering_vision rank 267
25 benchmarks
.082
0
ceiling
best
median
.001 ImageNet-top1 v1 [reference] rank 241
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.001 ImageNet-C-top1 [reference] rank 232
4 benchmarks
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
.001 ImageNet-C-noise-top1 v2 [reference] rank 223
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.001 ImageNet-C-blur-top1 v2 [reference] rank 210
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.001 ImageNet-C-weather-top1 v2 [reference] rank 209
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.001 ImageNet-C-digital-top1 v2 [reference] rank 207
.001
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.075 Geirhos2021-top1 [reference] rank 250
17 benchmarks
.075
0
ceiling
best
median
.089 Geirhos2021colour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 248
.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
.072 Geirhos2021contrast-top1 v1 [reference] rank 248
.072
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.077 Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1 v1 [reference] rank 250
.077
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.062 Geirhos2021edge-top1 v1 [reference] rank 257
.062
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.075 Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1 v1 [reference] rank 251
.075
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.084 Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 249
.084
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.081 Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1 v1 [reference] rank 249
.081
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.075 Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1 v1 [reference] rank 250
.075
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.062 Geirhos2021highpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 252
.062
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.071 Geirhos2021lowpass-top1 v1 [reference] rank 247
.071
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.086 Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1 v1 [reference] rank 249
.086
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.062 Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 253
.062
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.077 Geirhos2021rotation-top1 v1 [reference] rank 246
.077
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.087 Geirhos2021silhouette-top1 v1 [reference] rank 251
.087
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.064 Geirhos2021sketch-top1 v1 [reference] rank 256
.064
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.065 Geirhos2021stylized-top1 v1 [reference] rank 252
.065
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 Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1 v1 [reference] rank 246
.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
.331 Hermann2020 [reference] rank 50
2 benchmarks
.331
0
ceiling
best
median
.078 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match v1 [reference] rank 251
.078
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.584 Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias v1 [reference] rank 23
.584
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("deit_small_imagenet_1_seed-0")
model.start_task(...)
model.start_recording(...)
model.look_at(...)

Benchmarks bibtex

@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{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{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.}
        }
        @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}
}
        @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}
}
        @INPROCEEDINGS{5206848,  
                                                author={J. {Deng} and W. {Dong} and R. {Socher} and L. {Li} and  {Kai Li} and  {Li Fei-Fei}},  
                                                booktitle={2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition},   
                                                title={ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database},   
                                                year={2009},  
                                                volume={},  
                                                number={},  
                                                pages={248-255},
                                            }
        @ARTICLE{Hendrycks2019-di,
   title         = "Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions
                    and Perturbations",
   author        = "Hendrycks, Dan and Dietterich, Thomas",
   abstract      = "In this paper we establish rigorous benchmarks for image
                    classifier robustness. Our first benchmark, ImageNet-C,
                    standardizes and expands the corruption robustness topic,
                    while showing which classifiers are preferable in
                    safety-critical applications. Then we propose a new dataset
                    called ImageNet-P which enables researchers to benchmark a
                    classifier's robustness to common perturbations. Unlike
                    recent robustness research, this benchmark evaluates
                    performance on common corruptions and perturbations not
                    worst-case adversarial perturbations. We find that there are
                    negligible changes in relative corruption robustness from
                    AlexNet classifiers to ResNet classifiers. Afterward we
                    discover ways to enhance corruption and perturbation
                    robustness. We even find that a bypassed adversarial defense
                    provides substantial common perturbation robustness.
                    Together our benchmarks may aid future work toward networks
                    that robustly generalize.",
   month         =  mar,
   year          =  2019,
   archivePrefix = "arXiv",
   primaryClass  = "cs.LG",
   eprint        = "1903.12261",
   url           = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12261"
}
        @article{hermann2020origins,
              title={The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks},
              author={Hermann, Katherine and Chen, Ting and Kornblith, Simon},
              journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
              volume={33},
              pages={19000--19015},
              year={2020},
              url={https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/db5f9f42a7157abe65bb145000b5871a-Abstract.html}
        }
        

Layer Commitment

Region Layer
V1 blocks.2.norm1
V2 blocks.6.norm2
V4 blocks.5.norm1
IT blocks.9.norm2

Visual Angle

None degrees