While our study identifies clear separations between model hypothesis classes, our best models still have not reached the consistency ceiling of the neural and behavioral benchmarks we have compared against. All models were simultaneously trained across all eight scenarios of the Physion Dynamics Training Set, constituting around 16,000 total training scenarios (2,000 scenes per scenario) [Bear et al., 2021], with a Each C-SWM [Kipf et al., 2020] model was trained on For each stimulus, we compute the proportion of "hit" responses by The Correlation to A verage Human Response is the Pearson's correlation between the model probability-hit vector and the human proportion-hit vector, across stimuli per scenario. OCP Accuracy of humans and models is the average accuracy, across stimuli per scenario. To give the final values of the two quantities, we then compute the weighted mean and s.e.m. of the above per Note that these values are therefore different for each condition, but always the same across all models. All neural predictivities are reported on heldout conditions and their timepoints.

The OOD splits included variations in image contrast, hue, intensity, temperature, and saturation.

How should the response profiles of these more "heterogeneous" cells be described, and how do they contribute to behavior? In this work, we took a computational approach to addressing these questions.

Supplementary Material for "What shapes feature representations? Feature decodability in models with a ResNet-50 architecture trained on the Navon dataset. Non-target features are suppressed in the post-pool layer of models with a ResNet-50 architecture trained on the Trifeature dataset. Accuracy decoding features (shape, texture, color) for models trained to classify shape (left), texture (center), or color (right). Non-target features that are correlated with the target feature are suppressed in ResNet-50.

In naturalistic learning problems, a model's input contains a wide range of features,

Artificial neural network models have emerged as promising mechanistic models of the brain. However, there is little consensus on the correct method for comparing model activations to brain responses. Drawing on recent work in philosophy of neuroscience, we propose a comparison methodology based on the Inter-Animal Transform Class (IATC) - the strictest set of functions needed to accurately map neural responses between subjects in an animal population. Using the IATC, we can map bidirectionally between a candidate model's responses and brain data, assessing how well the model can masquerade as a typical subject using the same kinds of transforms needed to map across real subjects. We identify the IATC in three settings: a simulated population of neural network models, a population of mouse subjects, and a population of human subjects. We find that the IATC resolves detailed aspects of the neural mechanism, such as the non-linear activation function. Most importantly, we find that the IATC enables accurate predictions of neural activity while also achieving high specificity in mechanism identification, evidenced by its ability to separate response patterns from different brain areas while strongly aligning same-brain-area responses between subjects. In other words, the IATC is a proof-by-existence that there is no inherent tradeoff between the neural engineering goal of high model-brain predictivity and the neuroscientific goal of identifying mechanistically accurate brain models. Using IATC-guided transforms, we obtain new evidence in favor of topographical deep neural networks (TDANNs) as models of the visual system. Overall, the IATC enables principled model-brain comparisons, contextualizing previous findings about the predictive success of deep learning models of the brain, while improving upon previous approaches to model-brain comparison.