ArticleScientific reports2025
Recurrent issues with deep neural network models of visual recognition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Partial Occlusion on Response Dynamics and Interregional Processing within Primate Superior Temporal Sulcus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Recurrence affects the geometry of visual representations across the ventral visual stream in the human brain.PLoS biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Object recognition requires flexible and robust information processing, especially in view of the challenges posed by naturalistic visual settings. The ventral stream in visual cortex is provided with this robustness by its recurrent connectivity. Recurrent deep neural networks (DNNs) have recently emerged as promising models of the ventral stream, surpassing feedforward DNNs in the ability to account for brain representations. In this study, we asked whether recurrent DNNs could also better account for human behaviour during visual recognition. We assembled a stimulus set that includes manipulations that are often associated with recurrent processing in the literature, like occlusion, partial viewing, clutter, and spatial phase scrambling. We obtained a benchmark dataset from human participants performing a categorisation task on this stimulus set. By applying a wide range of model architectures to the same task, we uncovered a nuanced relationship between recurrence, model size, and performance. First, results show that increases in performance were most strongly linked to increases in model size, with architecture seemingly not playing a role, even for more challenging manipulations. Second, we found larger models to be more consistent with humans on which manipulations they found more difficult, regardless of model architecture. Finally, we found a negative effect of size in matching human confusion matrices in recurrent but not feedforward DNNs. Contrary to previous assumptions, our findings challenge the notion that recurrent models are better models of human recognition behaviour than feedforward models, and emphasise the complexity of incorporating recurrence into computational models.
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.