Scores on benchmarks

Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.
.215 average_vision rank 187
81 benchmarks
.215
0
ceiling
best
median
.262 neural_vision rank 291
38 benchmarks
.262
0
ceiling
best
median
.329 V1 rank 221
24 benchmarks
.329
0
ceiling
best
median
.003 Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm v1 rank 162
.003
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.754 Marques2020 [reference] rank 86
22 benchmarks
.754
0
ceiling
best
median
.897 V1-orientation rank 80
7 benchmarks
.897
0
ceiling
best
median
.975 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective v1 rank 124
.975
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.878 Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance v1 rank 80
.878
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.901 Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio v1 rank 58
.901
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.916 Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio v1 rank 61
.916
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.850 Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or v1 rank 287
.850
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.978 Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff v1 rank 11
.978
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.778 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth v1 rank 255
.778
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.886 V1-spatial_frequency rank 24
3 benchmarks
.886
0
ceiling
best
median
.777 Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf v1 rank 109
.777
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.945 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth v1 [reference] rank 18
.945
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.937 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective v1 [reference] rank 93
.937
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.649 V1-response_selectivity rank 200
4 benchmarks
.649
0
ceiling
best
median
.632 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity v1 [reference] rank 284
.632
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.598 Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio v1 rank 66
.598
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.785 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio v1 [reference] rank 112
.785
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.583 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness v1 [reference] rank 274
.583
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.793 V1-receptive_field_size rank 61
2 benchmarks
.793
0
ceiling
best
median
.868 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field v1 [reference] rank 44
.868
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.719 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter v1 [reference] rank 101
.719
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.626 V1-surround_modulation rank 168
1 benchmark
.626
0
ceiling
best
median
.626 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index v1 [reference] rank 168
.626
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.545 V1-texture_modulation rank 263
2 benchmarks
.545
0
ceiling
best
median
.448 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 246
.448
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.643 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 270
.643
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.881 V1-response_magnitude rank 138
3 benchmarks
.881
0
ceiling
best
median
.865 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture v1 [reference] rank 171
.865
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.987 Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc v1 rank 25
.987
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.793 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise v1 [reference] rank 156
.793
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.231 FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls v2 [reference] rank 341
.231
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
.126 V2 rank 373
2 benchmarks
.126
0
ceiling
best
median
.001 Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm v1 rank 172
.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
.252 FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls v2 [reference] rank 341
.252
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
.344 V4 rank 307
5 benchmarks
.344
0
ceiling
best
median
.004 Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm v1 rank 160
.004
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.420 SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 306
.420
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
.565 Sanghavi2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 315
.565
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
.167 SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls v1 [reference] rank 308
.167
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
.566 MajajHong2015.V4-pls v3 [reference] rank 225
.566
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
.247 IT rank 312
7 benchmarks
.247
0
ceiling
best
median
.203 Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm v1 rank 155
.203
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 Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm v1 rank 178
.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
.253 SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 331
.253
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
.479 Sanghavi2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 302
.479
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
.356 SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls v1 [reference] rank 336
.356
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
.436 MajajHong2015.IT-pls v3 [reference] rank 339
.436
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
.168 behavior_vision rank 180
43 benchmarks
.168
0
ceiling
best
median
.261 Rajalingham2018-i2n v2 [reference] rank 335
.261
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
.475 Maniquet2024 rank 116
2 benchmarks
.475
0
ceiling
best
median
.418 Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity v1 [reference] rank 112
.418
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.531 Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency v1 [reference] rank 142
.531
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.406 Ferguson2024 [reference] rank 151
14 benchmarks
.406
0
ceiling
best
median
.283 Ferguson2024half-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 156
.283
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.205 Ferguson2024lle-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 153
.205
0
ceiling
best
median
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 102
.137
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.358 Ferguson2024color-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 152
.358
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.121 Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 103
.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
.104 Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 188
.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
.894 Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 22
.894
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.160 Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 151
.160
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.805 Ferguson2024llh-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 53
.805
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.389 Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 85
.389
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 Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 160
.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
.135 Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 199
.135
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 Hebart2023-match v1 rank 174
.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
.113 Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity v1 rank 147
.113
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("yudixie_resnet18_object_class_0_240719")
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 {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}
}
        @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}
}
        

Layer Commitment

Region Layer
V1 layer2
V2 layer2
V4 layer2
IT layer3

Visual Angle

None degrees