ArticleJournal of vision2026
Behavioral differences between humans and machines arise early in visual processing.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It remains an open question to what extent current deep neural networks (DNNs) are suitable computational models of the human visual system. While DNNs have proven to be capable of predicting neural activations in primate visual cortex with great success, psychophysical experiments have shown behavioral differences between DNNs and human observers. One of these behavioral differences is which individual images DNNs and human observers find easy or difficult to recognize, as quantified by error consistency (EC). Hypothetically, the reported differences in EC could arise late in visual processing, even though the representations extracted by DNNs and human observers may have been more similar in the initial forward sweep: At the presentation and response times investigated in earlier work, observer-internal idiosyncrasies (e.g., in feedback-mediated memory) might have influenced the final behavioral responses, lowering EC between DNNs and human observers. To test this hypothesis, we systematically vary presentation times of backward-masked stimuli from 8.3 to 267 ms and measure human performance on a speeded eightfold identification task with natural images. Contrary to the hypothesis that error consistency peaks early in time, we find that it never exceeds the value of 0.4 known from previous work with longer presentation times, suggesting that the differences between DNNs and humans cannot be explained by late high-level reasoning but point to systematic processing differences between DNNs and the early human visual system.
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.