henhaobio
Sign in

Scientific ReportsNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article

Recurrent issues with deep neural networks of visual recognition

Timothée ManiquetiD, Hans Op de BeeckiD, Andrea Ivan CostantinoiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Object recognition requires flexible and robust information processing, especially in view of the challenges posed by naturalistic visual settings. The ventral stream in visual cortex is provided with this robustness by its recurrent connectivity. Recurrent deep neural networks (DNNs) have recently emerged as promising models of the ventral stream, surpassing feedforward DNNs in the ability to account for brain representations. In this study, we asked whether recurrent DNNs could also better account for human behaviour during visual recognition. We assembled a stimulus set that included manipulations that are often associated with recurrent processing in the literature, like occlusion, partial viewing, clutter, and spatial phase scrambling. We obtained a benchmark dataset from human participants performing a categorisation task on this stimulus set. By applying a wide range of model architectures to the same task, we uncovered a nuanced relationship between recurrence, model size, and performance. While recurrent models reach higher performance than their feedforward counterpart, we could not dissociate this improvement from that obtained by increasing model size. We found consistency between humans and models patterns of difficulty across the visual manipulations, but this was not modulated in an obvious way by the specific type of recurrence or size added to the model. Finally, depth/size rather than recurrence makes model confusion patterns more human-like. Contrary to previous assumptions, our findings challenge the notion that recurrent models are better models of human recognition behaviour than feedforward models, and emphasise the complexity of incorporating recurrence into computational models.

Citations
10
FWCI
4.54
Field percentile
top 4%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISNicholson '20Spoerer '20Spoerer '17Jozwik '23Kar '19Mugihiko '26
81% semantic matchNeuroscience
David Nicholson, Astrid A. Prinz·bioRxiv·Oct 26, 2020· 4 citations