Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38198504›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

High-performing neural network models of visual cortex benefit from high latent dimensionality.

Eric Elmoznino, Michael F Bonner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Convolutional architectures are cortex-aligned de novo.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. TopoNets: High performing vision and language models with brain-like topography.... International Conference on Learning Representations · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Eric ElmozninoDepartment of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4608-9712
Michael F BonnerDepartment of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geometric descriptions of deep neural networks (DNNs) have the potential to uncover core representational principles of computational models in neuroscience. Here we examined the geometry of DNN models of visual cortex by quantifying the latent dimensionality of their natural image representations. A popular view holds that optimal DNNs compress their representations onto low-dimensional subspaces to achieve invariance and robustness, which suggests that better models of visual cortex should have lower dimensional geometries. Surprisingly, we found a strong trend in the opposite direction-neural networks with high-dimensional image subspaces tended to have better generalization performance when predicting cortical responses to held-out stimuli in both monkey electrophysiology and human fMRI data. Moreover, we found that high dimensionality was associated with better performance when learning new categories of stimuli, suggesting that higher dimensional representations are better suited to generalize beyond their training domains. These findings suggest a general principle whereby high-dimensional geometry confers computational benefits to DNN models of visual cortex.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesVisual CortexAnimalsHaplorhiniHumansLearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID38198504
PMCPMC10805290

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.