Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37673027›Full record

ArticleNeural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society2023

A novel feature-scrambling approach reveals the capacity of convolutional neural networks to learn spatial relations.

Amr Farahat, Felix Effenberger, Martin Vinck

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Feature-specific predictive processing: What's in a prediction error?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amr FarahatErnst Strüngmann Institute for Neuroscience in Cooperation with Max Planck Society, Frankfurt, Germany; Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Department of Neuroinformatics, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: amr.farahat@esi-frankfurt.de.
Felix EffenbergerErnst Strüngmann Institute for Neuroscience in Cooperation with Max Planck Society, Frankfurt, Germany; Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt, Germany.
Martin VinckErnst Strüngmann Institute for Neuroscience in Cooperation with Max Planck Society, Frankfurt, Germany; Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Department of Neuroinformatics, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies · DE

Funding

European Research Council 850861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are one of the most successful computer vision systems to solve object recognition. Furthermore, CNNs have major applications in understanding the nature of visual representations in the human brain. Yet it remains poorly understood how CNNs actually make their decisions, what the nature of their internal representations is, and how their recognition strategies differ from humans. Specifically, there is a major debate about the question of whether CNNs primarily rely on surface regularities of objects, or whether they are capable of exploiting the spatial arrangement of features, similar to humans. Here, we develop a novel feature-scrambling approach to explicitly test whether CNNs use the spatial arrangement of features (i.e. object parts) to classify objects. We combine this approach with a systematic manipulation of effective receptive field sizes of CNNs as well as minimal recognizable configurations (MIRCs) analysis. In contrast to much previous literature, we provide evidence that CNNs are in fact capable of using relatively long-range spatial relationships for object classification. Moreover, the extent to which CNNs use spatial relationships depends heavily on the dataset, e.g. texture vs. sketch. In fact, CNNs even use different strategies for different classes within heterogeneous datasets (ImageNet), suggesting CNNs have a continuous spectrum of classification strategies. Finally, we show that CNNs learn the spatial arrangement of features only up to an intermediate level of granularity, which suggests that intermediate rather than global shape features provide the optimal trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in object classification. These results provide novel insights into the nature of CNN representations and the extent to which they rely on the spatial arrangement of features for object classification.

Indexed as

BrainNeural Networks, ComputerHumansRecognition, PsychologyVisual PerceptionCNNsComputer visionObject recognitionShape representationsTexture biasVisual cortex

Identifiers

PMID37673027
PMCPMC7616855
OpenAlexW4385988839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.