Emergence of Visual Center-Periphery Spatial Organization in Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research at the intersection of computer vision and neuroscience has revealed hierarchical correspondence between layers of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) and cascade of regions along human ventral visual cortex. Recently, studies have uncovered emergence of human interpretable concepts within DCNNs layers trained to identify visual objects and scenes. Here, we asked whether an artificial neural network (with convolutional structure) trained for visual categorization would demonstrate spatial correspondences with human brain regions showing central/peripheral biases. Using representational similarity analysis, we compared activations of convolutional layers of a DCNN trained for object and scene categorization with neural representations in human brain visual regions. Results reveal a brain-like topographical organization in the layers of the DCNN, such that activations of layer-units with central-bias were associated with brain regions with foveal tendencies (e.g. fusiform gyrus), and activations of layer-units with selectivity for image backgrounds were associated with cortical regions showing peripheral preference (e.g. parahippocampal cortex). The emergence of a categorical topographical correspondence between DCNNs and brain regions suggests these models are a good approximation of the perceptual representation generated by biological neural networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".