Visual angle and image context alter the alignment between deep convolutional neural networks and the macaque ventral stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A family of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) currently best explains primate ventral stream activity that supports object recognition. Such models are often evaluated with neurobehavioral datasets where the stimuli are presented in the subjects’ central field of view (FOV). However, the exact visual angle often varies widely across studies (e.g., 8 degrees for Yamins et al., 2014; 2.9 degrees for Khaligh-Razavi et al., 2014; catered to V1 neuronal receptive field, 2 degrees for Cadena et al., 2019). A unified model of the primate visual system cannot have a varying FOV. Similarly, the type of images used for model evaluation vary across studies, ranging from objects embedded in randomized contexts (Yamins et al., 2014) to objects with no contexts (Khaligh-Razavi et al., 2014). Here we systematically tested how the predictivity of macaque inferior temporal (IT) neurons by DCNNs depends on the FOV and the image-context. We used images (“full-context”) from the Microsoft COCO imageset. We performed large-scale recordings in one macaque (~100 IT sites) while the monkey passively fixated images presented at 20 and 30 degrees. To estimate the optimal FOV for the DCNNs, we compared the DCNN IT predictivity at varying image crop sizes. We observed that ~ 8-10 visual degree crops produced the strongest DCNN IT predictions. Next, to test the effect of image-context, we generated two versions of the original images: object only (“no- context”) and swapped backgrounds (“incongruent-context”). DCNN's IT predictivity was significantly lower for “incongruent-context” compared to the “no/full-context” images. Interestingly, we observed a more significant gap between early (90-120ms) and late (150 -180ms) response predictivity for “incongruent-context” compared to “no/full-context” images, suggesting stronger putative feedback signals during such contextual manipulations. In sum, our results provide critical constraints to guide the development of more brain-aligned DCNN models of the primate vision.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".