Synthesizing images to map neural networks to the human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational models can be used to generate hypotheses about the brain. In the visual system, this approach has revealed similarities between how natural images are represented in convolutional neural networks and in cortical regions. However, natural images generate highly correlated representations across the hierarchy of model layers, meaning that each brain region will not correspond selectively to a single layer. Because each model layer performs additional image transformations, gaining a more selective mapping between individual layers and regions could reveal how specific algorithmic stages of processing are instantiated in the brain. To enable this mapping, we developed a generative framework for image synthesis that minimizes the similarity of image representational similarity matrices across model layers, aiming to orthogonalize the distances between the patterns of unit activations evoked by the same set of images. With the patterns orthogonalized, the resulting similarity matrix for each layer provides a fingerprint of the unique computational role of that layer. To test this approach, we synthesized 16 artificial images from the Inception-V1/GoogLeNet model and scanned participants with fMRI while they viewed these images repeatedly in random order. Image-specific patterns of voxel activity were used to compute image-by-image similarity matrices across the whole brain with searchlights. Most layers could be mapped to circumscribed cortical regions, and these mappings overlapped less than the mappings obtained with natural images. Given the prevalence of existing fMRI datasets with natural images, we used the synthesis method as a benchmark to develop an alternative residual method that can achieve comparable performance for natural image datasets. These approaches could be extended to other neural network architectures and stimulus modalities for targeted mappings of model computations to the brain and behavior.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".