ArticleJournal of vision2025
Benchmarking the speed-accuracy tradeoff in object recognition by humans and neural networks.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Active object recognition, fundamental to tasks like reading and driving, relies on the ability to make time-sensitive decisions. People exhibit a flexible tradeoff between speed and accuracy, a crucial human skill. However, current computational models struggle to incorporate time. To address this gap, we present the first dataset (with 148 observers) exploring the speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) in ImageNet object recognition. Participants performed a 16-way ImageNet categorization task where their responses counted only if they occurred near the time of a fixed-delay beep. Each block of trials allowed one reaction time. As expected, human accuracy increases with reaction time. We compare human performance with that of dynamic neural networks that adapt their computation to the available inference time. Time is a scarce resource for human object recognition, and finding an appropriate analog in neural networks is challenging. Networks can repeat operations by using layers, recurrent cycles, or early exits. We use the repetition count as a network's analog for time. In our analysis, the number of layers, recurrent cycles, and early exits correlates strongly with floating-point operations, making them suitable time analogs. Comparing networks and humans on SAT-fit error, category-wise correlation, and SAT-curve steepness, we find cascaded dynamic neural networks most promising in modeling human speed and accuracy. Surprisingly, convolutional recurrent networks, typically favored in human object recognition modeling, perform the worst on our benchmark.
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.