ArticleScientific reports2023
Multiple visual objects are represented differently in the human brain and convolutional neural networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using fMRI Representations of Single Objects to Predict Multiple Objects in Working Memory in Human Occipitotemporal and Posterior Parietal Cortices.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Interactive shape and color representation in visual working memory for colored objects in the human occipitotemporal cortex.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The human posterior parietal cortices orthogonalize the representation of different streams of information concurrently coded in visual working memory.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Integrative processing in artificial and biological vision predicts the perceived beauty of natural images.Science advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objects in the real world usually appear with other objects. To form object representations independent of whether or not other objects are encoded concurrently, in the primate brain, responses to an object pair are well approximated by the average responses to each constituent object shown alone. This is found at the single unit level in the slope of response amplitudes of macaque IT neurons to paired and single objects, and at the population level in fMRI voxel response patterns in human ventral object processing regions (e.g., LO). Here, we compare how the human brain and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) represent paired objects. In human LO, we show that averaging exists in both single fMRI voxels and voxel population responses. However, in the higher layers of five CNNs pretrained for object classification varying in architecture, depth and recurrent processing, slope distribution across units and, consequently, averaging at the population level both deviated significantly from the brain data. Object representations thus interact with each other in CNNs when objects are shown together and differ from when objects are shown individually. Such distortions could significantly limit CNNs' ability to generalize object representations formed in different contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.