Scores on benchmarks
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models..086 |
average_vision
rank 398
81 benchmarks |
|
.105 |
neural_vision
rank 394
38 benchmarks |
|
.071 |
V1
rank 410
24 benchmarks |
|
.213 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 383
|
|
recordings from
102
sites in
V1
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.159 |
V2
rank 211
2 benchmarks |
|
.317 |
FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 125
|
|
recordings from
103
sites in
V2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.114 |
V4
rank 383
5 benchmarks |
|
.569 |
MajajHong2015.V4-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 205
|
|
recordings from
88
sites in
V4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.078 |
IT
rank 386
7 benchmarks |
|
.547 |
MajajHong2015.IT-pls
v3
[reference]
rank 50
|
|
recordings from
168
sites in
IT
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
.066 |
behavior_vision
rank 295
43 benchmarks |
|
.526 |
Rajalingham2018-i2n
v2
[reference]
rank 100
|
|
match-to-sample task
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
How to use
from brainscore_vision import load_model model = load_model("efficientnet-b2") model.start_task(...) model.start_recording(...) model.look_at(...)
Benchmarks bibtex
@Article{Freeman2013, author={Freeman, Jeremy and Ziemba, Corey M. and Heeger, David J. and Simoncelli, Eero P. and Movshon, J. Anthony}, title={A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates}, journal={Nature Neuroscience}, year={2013}, month={Jul}, day={01}, volume={16}, number={7}, pages={974-981}, abstract={The authors examined neuronal responses in V1 and V2 to synthetic texture stimuli that replicate higher-order statistical dependencies found in natural images. V2, but not V1, responded differentially to these textures, in both macaque (single neurons) and human (fMRI). Human detection of naturalistic structure in the same images was predicted by V2 responses, suggesting a role for V2 in representing natural image structure.}, issn={1546-1726}, doi={10.1038/nn.3402}, url={https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3402} } @article {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 {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} }