The Impact of Scene Context on Visual Object Recognition: Comparing Humans, Monkeys, and Computational Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During natural vision, we rarely see objects in isolation but rather embedded in rich and complex contexts. Understanding how the brain recognizes objects in natural scenes by integrating contextual information remains a key challenge. To elucidate neural mechanisms compatible with human visual processing, we need an animal model that behaves similarly to humans, so that inferred neural mechanisms can provide hypotheses relevant to the human brain. Here we assessed whether rhesus macaques could model human context-driven object recognition by quantifying visual object identification abilities across variations in the amount, quality, and congruency of contextual cues. Behavioral metrics revealed strikingly similar context-dependent patterns between humans and monkeys. However, neural responses in the inferior temporal (IT) cortex of monkeys that were never explicitly trained to discriminate objects in context, as well as current artificial neural network models, could only partially explain this cross-species correspondence. The shared behavioral variance unexplained by context-naive neural data or computational models highlights fundamental knowledge gaps. Our findings demonstrate an intriguing alignment of human and monkey visual object processing that defies full explanation by either brain activity in a key visual region or state-of-the-art models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".