ArticleiScience2026
Systematic image perturbations reveal persistent gaps between human and machine vision.
Article in iScience, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are promising computational models for understanding visual object recognition. Yet, whether DNNs use similar visual cues for object recognition as humans do remains unknown. We created an image set that systematically untangles global shape, internal parts, and texture information, and compared human recognition behavior against >200 DNNs spanning diverse architectures, training diets, and training objectives. No DNNs replicated humans' cue-reliance profile, including those with recurrence or specialized training. Fine-tuned text-image contrastive-trained models, regardless of architecture, were most human-like overall, but lost their human-alignment when the global shape was disrupted. Strikingly, all DNNs substantially underperformed humans when the global shape cue alone was critical to object recognition. Furthermore, alignment with ventral stream neural recordings in an existing database did not predict alignment to human behavior, and model performance does not always predict its human-alignment. Together, these findings reveal systematic and persistent differences between human and machine vision.
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.