bioRxiv ScienceSearch

Biology subjects

Storrs, K. R.

Publications and source records attributed to Storrs, K. R..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Diverse deep neural networks all predict human IT well, after training and fitting

Deep neural networks (DNNs) trained on object recognition provide the best current models of high-level visual areas in the brain. What remains unclear is how strongly network design choices, such as architecture, task training, and subsequent fitting to brain data contribute to the observed similarities. Here we compare a diverse set of nine DNN architectures on their ability to explain the representational geometry of 62 isolated object images in human inferior temporal (hIT) cortex, as measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. We compare untrained networks to their task-trained counterparts, and assess the effect of fitting them to hIT using a cross-validation procedure. To best explain hIT, we fit a weighted combination of the principal components of the features within each layer, and subsequently a weighted combination of layers. We test all models across all stages of training and fitting for their correlation with the hIT representational dissimilarity matrix (RDM) using an independent set of images and subjects. We find that trained models significantly outperform untrained models (accounting for 57% more of the explainable variance), suggesting that features representing natural images are important for explaining hIT. Model fitting further improves the alignment of DNN and hIT representations (by 124%), suggesting that the relative prevalence of different features in hIT does not readily emerge from the particular ImageNet object-recognition task used to train the networks. Finally, all DNN architectures tested achieved equivalent high performance once trained and fitted. Similar ability to explain hIT representations appears to be shared among deep feedforward hierarchies of nonlinear features with spatially restricted receptive fields.

neuroscience

Unsupervised Learning Predicts Human Perception and Misperception of Specular Surface Reflectance

Reflectance, lighting, and geometry combine in complex ways to create images. How do we disentangle these to perceive individual properties, like surface glossiness? We suggest that brains disentangle properties by learning to model statistical structure in proximal images. To test this, we trained unsupervised generative neural networks on renderings of glossy surfaces and compared their representations with human gloss judgments. The networks spontaneously cluster images according to distal properties such as reflectance and illumination, despite receiving no explicit information about them. Intriguingly, the resulting representations also predict the specific patterns of successes and errors in human perception. Linearly decoding specular reflectance from the models internal code predicts human gloss perception better than ground truth, supervised networks, or control models, and predicts, on an image-by-image basis, illusions of gloss perception caused by interactions between material, shape, and lighting. Unsupervised learning may underlie many perceptual dimensions in vision, and beyond.

neuroscience

Noise ceiling on the crossvalidated performance of reweighted models of representational dissimilarity: Addendum to Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte (2014)

An error was made in including noise ceilings for human data in Khaligh-Razavi and Kriegeskorte (2014). For comparability with the macaque data, human data were averaged across participants before analysis. Therefore the noise ceilings indicating variability across human participants do not accurately depict the upper bounds of possible model performance and should not have been shown. Creating noise ceilings appropriate for the fitted models is not trivial. Below we present a method for doing this, and the results obtained with this new method. The corrected results differ from the original results in that the best-performing model (weighted combination of AlexNet layers and category readouts) does not reach the lower bound of the noise ceiling. However, the best-performing model is not significantly below the lower bound of the noise ceiling. The claim that the model "fully explains" the human IT data appears overstated. All other claims of the paper are unaffected.

neuroscience