Contrastive learning explains the emergence and function of visual category-selective regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modular and distributed coding theories of category selectivity along the human ventral visual stream have long existed in tension. Here, we present a reconciling framework-contrastive coding-based on a series of analyses relating category selectivity within biological and artificial neural networks. We discover that, in models trained with contrastive self-supervised objectives over a rich natural image diet, category-selective tuning naturally emerges for faces, bodies, scenes, and words. Further, lesions of these model units lead to selective, dissociable recognition deficits, highlighting their distinct functional roles in information processing. Finally, these pre-identified units can predict neural responses in all corresponding face-, scene-, body-, and word-selective regions of human visual cortex, under a highly constrained sparse positive encoding procedure. The success of this single model indicates that brain-like functional specialization can emerge without category-specific learning pressures, as the system learns to untangle rich image content. Contrastive coding, therefore, provides a unifying account of object category emergence and representation in the human brain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".