Neuroscience theory posits that the brain's visual system coarsely identifies broad object categories via neural activation patterns, with similar objects producing similar neural responses. Artificial neural networks also have internal activation behavior in response to stimuli. We hypothesize that networks exhibiting brain-like activation behavior will demonstrate brain-like characteristics, e.g., stronger generalization capabilities. In this paper we introduce a human-model similarity (HMS) metric, which quantifies the similarity of human fMRI and network activation behavior. To calculate HMS, representational dissimilarity matrices (RDMs) are created as abstractions of activation behavior, measured by the correlations of activations to stimulus pairs. HMS is then the correlation between the fMRI RDM and the neural network RDM across all stimulus pairs. We test the metric on unsupervised predictive coding networks, which specifically model visual perception, and assess the metric for statistical significance over a large range of hyperparameters. Our experiments show that networks with increased human-model similarity are correlated with better performance on two computer vision tasks: next frame prediction and object matching accuracy. Further, HMS identifies networks with high performance on both tasks. An unexpected secondary finding is that the metric can be employed during training as an early-stopping mechanism.
HMS uses human participant fMRI data as ground-truth internal behavior that leads to good generalization. The comparison between networks and human fMRI data is inspired by Kriegeskorte al @cite_34 , who described how network or neural activations could be abstracted into an RDM. An RDM is an abstract representation that can be directly compared against another RDM, as long as both are created from a joint set of stimuli. Fig. shows how internal behavior is calculated and abstracted into RDMs, and how RDMs can be compared. Sec. describes the formal RDM creation process. Kriegeskorte has a long history of utilizing RDMs to study neural behavior @cite_16 @cite_42 @cite_34 @cite_33 @cite_49 @cite_41 .
@cite_33 @cite_41 @cite_42 @cite_16 @cite_49 @cite_34
2123544472 2057307785 1965333043 2079124220 2160654481
Summary Inferior temporal (IT) object representations have been intensively studied in monkeys and humans, but representations of the same particular objects have never been compared between the species. Moreover, IT's role in categorization is not well understood. Here, we presented monkeys and humans with the same images of real-world objects and measured the IT response pattern elicited by each image. In order to relate the representations between the species and to computational models, we compare response-pattern dissimilarity matrices. IT response patterns form category clusters, which match between man and monkey. The clusters correspond to animate and inanimate objects; within the animate objects, faces and bodies form subclusters. Within each category, IT distinguishes individual exemplars, and the within-category exemplar similarities also match between the species. Our findings suggest that primate IT across species may host a common code, which combines a categorical and a continuous representation of objects. Neuronal population codes are increasingly being investigated with multivariate pattern-information analyses. A key challenge is to use measured brain-activity patterns to test computational models of brain information processing. One approach to this problem is representational similarity analysis (RSA), which characterizes a representation in a brain or computational model by the distance matrix of the response patterns elicited by a set of stimuli. The representational distance matrix encapsulates what distinctions between stimuli are emphasized and what distinctions are de-emphasized in the representation. A model is tested by comparing the representational distance matrix it predicts to that of a measured brain region. RSA also enables us to compare representations between stages of processing within a given brain or model, between brain and behavioral data, and between individuals and species. Here, we introduce a Matlab toolbox for RSA. The toolbox supports an analysis approach that is simultaneously data- and hypothesis-driven. It is designed to help integrate a wide range of computational models into the analysis of multichannel brain-activity measurements as provided by modern functional imaging and neuronal recording techniques. Tools for visualization and inference enable the user to relate sets of models to sets of brain regions and to statistically test and compare the models using nonparametric inference methods. The toolbox supports searchlight-based RSA, to continuously map a measured brain volume in search of a neuronal population code with a specific geometry. Finally, we introduce the linear-discriminant t value as a measure of representational discriminability that bridges the gap between linear decoding analyses and RSA. In order to demonstrate the capabilities of the toolbox, we apply it to both simulated and real fMRI data. The key functions are equally applicable to other modalities of brain-activity measurement. The toolbox is freely available to the community under an open-source license agreement (http: www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk methods-and-resources toolboxes license ). Abstract Pattern-information analysis has become an important new paradigm in functional imaging. Here I review and compare existing approaches with a focus on the question of what we can learn from them in terms of brain theory. The most popular and widespread method is stimulus decoding by response-pattern classification. This approach addresses the question whether activity patterns in a given region carry information about the stimulus category. Pattern classification uses generic models of the stimulus–response relationship that do not mimic brain information processing and treats the stimulus space as categorical—a simplification that is often helpful, but also limiting in terms of the questions that can be addressed. We can address the question whether representations are consistent across different stimulus sets or tasks by cross-decoding, where the classifier is trained with one set of stimuli (or task) and tested with another. Beyond pattern classification, a major new direction is the integration of computational models of brain information processing into pattern-information analysis. This approach enables us to address the question to what extent competing computational models are consistent with the stimulus representations in a brain region. Two methods that test computational models are voxel receptive-field modeling and representational similarity analysis. These methods sample the stimulus (or mental-state) space more richly, estimate a separate response pattern for each stimulus, and can generalize from the stimulus sample to a stimulus population. Computational models that mimic brain information processing predict responses from stimuli. The reverse transform can be modeled to reconstruct stimuli from responses. Stimulus reconstruction is a challenging feat of engineering, but the implications of the results for brain theory are not always clear. Exploratory pattern analyses complement the confirmatory approaches mentioned so far and can reveal strong, unexpected effects that might be missed when testing only a restricted set of predefined hypotheses. Perceptual and cognitive content is thought to be represented in the brain by patterns of activity across populations of neurons. In order to test whether a computational model can explain a given population code and whether corresponding codes in man and monkey convey the same information, we need to quantitatively relate population-code representations. Here I give a brief introduction to representational similarity analysis (RSA), a particular approach to this problem. A population code is characterized by a representational dissimilarity matrix (RDM), which contains a dissimilarity for each pair of activity patterns elicited by a given stimulus set. The RDM encapsulates which distinctions the representation emphasizes and which it deemphasizes. By analyzing correlations between RDMs we can test models and compare different species. Moreover, we can study how representations are transformed across stages of processing and how they relate to behavioral measures of object similarity. We use an example from object vision to illustrate the method’s potential to bridge major divides that have hampered progress in systems neuroscience. A fundamental challenge for systems neuroscience is to quantitatively relate its three major branches of research: brain-activity measurement, behavioral measurement, and computational modeling. Using measured brain-activity patterns to evaluate computational network models is complicated by the need to define the correspondency between the units of the model and the channels of the brain-activity data, e.g. single-cell recordings or voxels from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Similar correspondency problems complicate relating activity patterns between different modalities of brain-activity measurement, and between subjects and species. In order to bridge these divides, we suggest abstracting from the activity patterns themselves and computing representational dissimilarity matrices, which characterize the information carried by a given representation in a brain or model. We propose a new experimental and data-analytical framework called representational similarity analysis (RSA), in which multi-channel measures of neural activity are quantitatively related to each other and to computational theory and behavior by comparing representational dissimilarity matrices. We demonstrate RSA by relating representations of visual objects as measured with fMRI to computational models spanning a wide range of complexities. We argue that these ideas, which have deep roots in psychology and neuroscience, will allow the integrated quantitative analysis of data from all three branches, thus contributing to a more unified systems neuroscience.