Search

Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) are able to predict brain activity during object categorization tasks, but factors contributing to this predictive power are not fully understood. Our study aimed to investigate the factors contributing to the predictive power of DCNNs in object categorization tasks. We compared the activity of four DCNN architectures with electroencephalography (EEG) recordings obtained from 62 human subjects during an object categorization task. Previous physiological studies on object categorization have highlighted the importance of figure-ground segregation - the ability to distinguish objects from their backgrounds. Therefore, we set out to investigate if figure-ground segregation could explain DCNNs predictive power. Using a stimuli set consisting of identical target objects embedded in different backgrounds, we examined the influence of object background versus object category on both EEG and DCNN activity. Crucially, the recombination of naturalistic objects and experimentally-controlled backgrounds creates a sufficiently challenging and naturalistic task, while allowing us to retain experimental control. Our results showed that early EEG activity (Author summaryOur study aimed to investigate the factors contributing to the predictive power of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) on EEG activity in object recognition tasks. We compared the activity of four DCNN architectures with human neural recordings during an object categorization task. We used a stimuli set consisting of identical target objects embedded in different phase-scrambled backgrounds. The distinction between object backgrounds and object categories allows us to investigate the influence of either factor for human subjects and DCNNs. Surprisingly, we found that both human visual processing and early DCNNs layers dedicate a large proportion of activity to processing object backgrounds instead of object category. Furthermore, this shared ability to make object backgrounds (and not just object category) invariant is largely the reason why DCNNs are predictive of brain dynamics in our experiment. We posit this shared ability to be an important solution for object categorization. Finally, we conclude that DCNNs, like humans, care deeply about object backgrounds.

Recurrent processing is a crucial feature in human visual processing supporting perceptual grouping, figure-ground segmentation, and recognition under challenging conditions. There is a clear need to incorporate recurrent processing in deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) but the computations underlying recurrent processing remain unclear. In this paper, we tested a form of recurrence in deep residual networks (ResNets) to capture recurrent processing signals in the human brain. Though ResNets are feedforward networks, they approximate an excitatory additive form of recurrence. Essentially, this form of recurrence consists of repeating excitatory activations in response to a static stimulus. Here, we used ResNets of varying depths (reflecting varying levels of recurrent processing) to explain electroencephalography (EEG) activity within a visual masking paradigm. Sixty-two humans and fifty artificial agents (10 ResNet models of depths - 4, 6, 10, 18 and 34) completed an object categorization task. We show that deeper networks (ResNet-10, 18 and 34) explained more variance in brain activity compared to shallower networks (ResNet-4 and 6). Furthermore, all ResNets captured differences in brain activity between unmasked and masked trials, with differences starting at ∼98ms (from stimulus onset). These early differences indicated that EEG activity reflected ‘pure’ feedforward signals only briefly (up to ∼98ms). After ∼98ms, deeper networks showed a significant increase in explained variance which peaks at ∼200ms, but only within unmasked trials, not masked trials. In summary, we provided clear evidence that excitatory additive recurrent processing in ResNets captures some of the recurrent processing in humans.Significance statementThe challenge of modeling recurrent processes is not trivial and the operationalization of recurrent processing is highly contested. In this paper, we tested the ability of deep residual networks (ResNets) to explain recurrent processes in the human brain. Though ResNets are feedforward networks, they have been shown to equate operations in recurrent neural networks. In this study, we show that deeper networks explained more variance in brain activity than shallower networks. However, all networks still performed far from the noise ceiling. Thus, we conclude that recurrent processing in ResNets captures a form of recurrent processing in humans though other types of recurrent processing (inhibition, multiplicative) that are not present in current regular deep neural networks (alexnet, cornet, resnet) are necessary for building better visual models.