ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
How well do models of visual cortex generalize to out of distribution samples?
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Narrowing the gap between analytically convenient and naturalistic stimuli.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Local lateral connectivity is sufficient for replicating cortex-like topographical organization in deep neural networks.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A 7T fMRI dataset of synthetic images for out-of-distribution modeling of vision.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- A large-scale examination of inductive biases shaping high-level visual representation in brains and machines.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The Dynamic Sensorium competition for predicting large-scale mouse visual cortex activity from videos.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Energy Guided Diffusion for Generating Neurally Exciting Images.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unit activity in particular deep neural networks (DNNs) are remarkably similar to the neuronal population responses to static images along the primate ventral visual cortex. Linear combinations of DNN unit activities are widely used to build predictive models of neuronal activity in the visual cortex. Nevertheless, prediction performance in these models is often investigated on stimulus sets consisting of everyday objects under naturalistic settings. Recent work has revealed a generalization gap in how predicting neuronal responses to synthetically generated out-of-distribution (OOD) stimuli. Here, we investigated how the recent progress in improving DNNs' object recognition generalization, as well as various DNN design choices such as architecture, learning algorithm, and datasets have impacted the generalization gap in neural predictivity. We came to a surprising conclusion that the performance on none of the common computer vision OOD object recognition benchmarks is predictive of OOD neural predictivity performance. Furthermore, we found that adversarially robust models often yield substantially higher generalization in neural predictivity, although the degree of robustness itself was not predictive of neural predictivity score. These results suggest that improving object recognition behavior on current benchmarks alone may not lead to more general models of neurons in the primate ventral visual cortex.
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.