Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, 1106–1114 (2012).
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 770–778 (IEEE, 2016).
Hinton, G. et al. Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: the shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 29, 82–97 (2012).
Google Scholar
Amodei, D. et al. Deep Speech 2: end-to-end speech recognition in English and Mandarin. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 48, 173–182 (2016).
Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 484–489 (2016).
Google Scholar
Vinyals, O. et al. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575, 350–354 (2019).
Google Scholar
Khaligh-Razavi, S.-M. & Kriegeskorte, N. Deep supervised, but not unsupervised, models may explain it cortical representation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003915 (2014).
Google Scholar
Yamins, D. L. K. et al. Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8619–8624 (2014).
Google Scholar
Güçlü, U. & van Gerven, M. A. J. Deep neural networks reveal a gradient in the complexity of neural representations across the ventral stream. J. Neurosci. 35, 10005–10014 (2015).
Google Scholar
Rajalingham, R., Schmidt, K. & DiCarlo, J. J. Comparison of object recognition behavior in human and monkey. J. Neurosci. 35, 12127–12136 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kubilius, J., Bracci, S. & Op de Beeck, H. P. Deep neural networks as a computational model for human shape sensitivity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004896 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cichy, R. M. & Kaiser, D. Deep neural networks as scientific models. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 305–317 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lindsay, G. W. Convolutional neural networks as a model of the visual system: past, present, and future. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 33, 2017–2031 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N., Khosla, M. & Dobs, K. Using artificial neural networks to ask ‘why’ questions of minds and brains. Trends Neurosci. 46, 240–254 (2023).
Google Scholar
Doerig, A. et al. The neuroconnectionist research programme. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 431–450 (2023).
Rajalingham, R. et al. Large-scale, high-resolution comparison of the core visual object recognition behavior of humans, monkeys, and state-of-the-art deep artificial neural networks. J. Neurosci. 38, 7255–7269 (2018).
Google Scholar
Geirhos, R. et al. Generalisation in humans and deep neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31, 7549–7561 (2018).
Rosenfeld, A., Zemel, R. & Tsotsos, J. K. The elephant in the room. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03305 (2018).
Beery, S., Van Horn, G. & Perona, P. Recognition in terra incognita. In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision 456–473 (Springer, 2018).
Szegedy, C. et al. Intriguing properties of neural networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199 (2013).
Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M. & Bandettini, P. A. Representational similarity analysis-connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2, 4 (2008).
Attarian, M., Roads, B. D. & Mozer, M. C. Transforming neural network visual representations to predict human judgments of similarity. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.06512 (2020).
Roads, B. D. & Love, B. C. Learning as the unsupervised alignment of conceptual systems. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 76–82 (2020).
Google Scholar
Peterson, J. C., Abbott, J. T. & Griffiths, T. L. Evaluating (and improving) the correspondence between deep neural networks and human representations. Cogn. Sci. 42, 2648–2669 (2018).
Google Scholar
Muttenthaler, L., Dippel, J., Linhardt, L., Vandermeulen, R. A. & Kornblith, S. Human alignment of neural network representations. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representions (ICLR, 2023).
Conwell, C., Prince, J. S., Kay, K. N., Alvarez, G. A. & Konkle, T. A large-scale examination of inductive biases shaping high-level visual representation in brains and machines. Nat. Commun. 15, 9383 (2024).
Schrimpf, M. et al. Brain-Score: which artificial neural network for object recognition is most brain-like? Preprint at BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/407007 (2018).
Muttenthaler, L. et al. Improving neural network representations using human similarity judgments. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36, 50978–51007 (2023).
Wang, A. Y., Kay, K., Naselaris, T., Tarr, M. J. & Wehbe, L. Better models of human high-level visual cortex emerge from natural language supervision with a large and diverse dataset. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 1415–1426 (2023).
Storrs, K. R., Kietzmann, T. C., Walther, A., Mehrer, J. & Kriegeskorte, N. Diverse deep neural networks all predict human inferior temporal cortex well, after training and fitting. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 33, 2044–2064 (2021).
Erhan, D., Bengio, Y., Courville, A. & Vincent, P. Visualizing Higher-Layer Features of a Deep Network Report No. 1341 (Univ. of Montreal, 2009).
Zeiler, M. D. & Fergus, R. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision 818–833 (Springer, 2014).
Zhou, B., Sun, Y., Bau, D. & Torralba, A. Revisiting the importance of individual units in CNNs via ablation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02891 (2018).
Morcos, A. S., Barrett, David G. T., Rabinowitz, N. C. & Botvinick, M. On the importance of single directions for generalization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06959 (2018).
Bau, D. et al. Understanding the role of individual units in a deep neural network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 30071–30078 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hebart, M. N., Zheng, C. Y., Pereira, F. & Baker, C. I. Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements. Nat. Human Behav. 4, 1173–1185 (2020).
Google Scholar
Muttenthaler, L. et al. VICE: variational interpretable concept embeddings. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 33661–33675 (2022).
Zheng, C. Y., Pereira, F., Baker, C. I. & Hebart, M. N. Revealing interpretable object representations from human behavior. In Proc. International Conferemce on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2019).
Hebart, M. N. et al. THINGS-data, a multimodal collection of large-scale datasets for investigating object representations in human brain and behavior. eLife 12, e82580 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hebart, M. N. et al. THINGS: a database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images. PLoS ONE 14, e0223792 (2019).
Google Scholar
Simonyan, K. & Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015).
Nonaka, S., Majima, K., Aoki, S. C. & Kamitani, Y. Brain hierarchy score: which deep neural networks are hierarchically brain-like? iScience 24, 103013 (2021).
Jozwik, K. M., Kriegeskorte, N., Storrs, K. R. & Mur, M. Deep convolutional neural networks outperform feature-based but not categorical models in explaining object similarity judgments. Front. Psychol. 8, 1726 (2017).
Google Scholar
King, M. L., Groen, I. A., Steel, A., Kravitz, D. J. & Baker, C. I. Similarity judgments and cortical visual responses reflect different properties of object and scene categories in naturalistic images. NeuroImage 197, 368–382 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kaniuth, P., Mahner, F. P., Perkuhn, J. & Hebart, M. N. A high-throughput approach for the efficient prediction of perceived similarity of natural objects. eLife 14, RP105394 (2025).
Deng, J. et al. ImageNet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 248–255 (IEEE, 2009).
Jain, L., Jamieson, K. G. & Nowak, R. D. Finite sample prediction and recovery bounds for ordinal embedding. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 2703–2711 (2016).
Hoyer, P. O. Non-negative sparse coding. In Proc. IEEE Workshop on Neural Networks for Signal Processing 557–565 (IEEE, 2002).
Murphy, B., Talukdar, P. & Mitchell, T. Learning effective and interpretable semantic models using non-negative sparse embedding. In Proc. International Conference on Computational Linguistics 1933–1950 (COLING, 2012).
Fyshe, A., Wehbe, L., Talukdar, P., Murphy, B. & Mitchell, T. A compositional and interpretable semantic space. In Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 32–41 (ACL, 2015).
Muttenthaler, L. & Hebart, M. N. THINGSvision: a Python toolbox for streamlining the extraction of activations from deep neural networks. Front. Neuroinform. 15, 45 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hermann, K., Chen, T. & Kornblith, S. The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 19000–19015 (2020).
Singer, J. J. D., Seeliger, K., Kietzmann, T. C. & Hebart, M. N. From photos to sketches—how humans and deep neural networks process objects across different levels of visual abstraction. J. Vis. 22, 4 (2022).
Google Scholar
Geirhos, R. et al. ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. In Proc. International Conferene on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2019).
Selvaraju, R. R. et al. Grad-CAM: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proc. IEEE International Conferene on Computer Vision 618–626 (IEEE, 2017).
Yosinski, J., Clune, J., Nguyen, A., Fuchs, T. & Lipson, H. Understanding neural networks through deep visualization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06579 (2015).
Montavon, G., Samek, W. & Müller, K.-R. Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digit. Signal Process. 73, 1–15 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sauer, A., Schwarz, K. & Geiger, A. StyleGAN-XL: scaling StyleGAN to large diverse datasets. In Proc. SIGGRAPH ’22 Conference 49, 1–10 (ACM, 2022).
Sucholutsky, I. et al. Getting aligned on representational alignment. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13018 (2023).
Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., Lee, H. & Hinton, G. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 97, 3519–3529 (2019).
Mahendran, A. & Vedaldi, A. Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 5188–5196 (IEEE, 2015).
Bau, D., Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. Network dissection: quantifying interpretability of deep visual representations. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 3319–3327 (IEEE, 2017).
Nguyen, A., Yosinski, J. & Clune, J. Understanding neural networks via feature visualization: a survey. In Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning (eds Samek, W.et al.) 55–76 (Springer, 2019).
Geirhos, R., Zimmermann, R. S., Bilodeau, B. L., Brendel, W. & Kim, B. Don’t trust your eyes: on the (un)reliability of feature visualizations. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML, 2024).
Geirhos, R. et al. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 665–673 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hermann, K. L., Mobahi, H., Fel, T. & Mozer, M. C. On the foundations of shortcut learning. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2024).
DiCarlo, J. J., Zoccolan, D. & Rust, N. C. How does the brain solve visual object recognition? Neuron 73, 415–434 (2012).
Google Scholar
Jagadeesh, A. V. & Gardner, J. L. Texture-like representation of objects in human visual cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2115302119 (2022).
Google Scholar
Prince, J. S., Alvarez, G. A. & Konkle, T. Contrastive learning explains the emergence and function of visual category-selective regions. Sci. Adv. 10, eadl1776 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N. Functional specificity in the human brain: a window into the functional architecture of the mind. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11163–11170 (2010).
Google Scholar
Mur, M. et al. Human object-similarity judgments reflect and transcend the primate-IT object representation. Front. Psychol. 4, 128 (2013).
Google Scholar
Sundaram, S. et al. When does perceptual alignment benefit vision representations? Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 37, 55314–55341 (2024).
Dwivedi, K. & Roig, G. Representation similarity analysis for efficient task taxonomy and transfer learning. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 12387–12396 (2019).
Zou, H. & Hastie, T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 67, 301–320 (2005).
Google Scholar
Mahner, F. P. florianmahner/object-dimensions. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14731440 (2025).
Stoinski, L. M., Perkuhn, J. & Hebart, M. N. THINGSplus: new norms and metadata for the THINGS database of 1854 object concepts and 26,107 natural object images. Behav. Res. 56, 1583–1603 (2024).
