Complex Properties of Training Stimuli Affect Brain Alignment in a Deep Network Model of Mouse Visual Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep convolutional neural networks are important models of the visual cortex that ac-count relatively well for brain activity and are able to perform ethologically relevant functions. However, it is unknown which combination of factors, such as network ar-chitecture, training objectives, and data best align this family of models with the brain. Here we investigate the statistics of training data. We hypothesized that stimuli that are naturalistic for mice would lead to higher similarity between deep network models and activity in mouse visual cortex. We used a video-game engine to create training datasets in which we varied the naturalism of the environment, the movement statis-tics, and the optics of the modelled eye. The naturalistic environment substantially and consistently led to greater brain similarity, while the other factors had more subtle and area-specific effects. We then hypothesized that differences in brain similarity between the two environments arose due to differences in spatial frequency spectra, distribu-tions of color and orientation, and/or temporal autocorrelations. To test this, we created abstract environments, composed of cubes and spheres, that resembled the naturalis-tic and non-naturalistic environments in these respects. Contrary to our expectations, these factors accounted poorly for differences in brain similarity due to the naturalis-tic and non-naturalistic environments. This suggests that the higher brain similarities we observed after training with the naturalistic environment were due to more complex factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".