Explaining V1 Properties with a Biologically Constrained Deep Learning Architecture
Authors: Galen Pogoncheff
Jacob Granley
Michael Beyeler
Venue: NeurIPS 2023 poster (2023)
Keywords: NeuroAI
Neuroscience
Visual Stream
Convolutional Neural Networks
Biologically inspired deep learning

Abstract: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have recently emerged as promising models of the ventral visual stream, despite their lack of biological specificity.
While current state-of-the-art models of the primary visual cortex (V1) have surfaced from training with adversarial examples and extensively augmented data, these models are still unable to explain key neural properties observed in V1 that arise from biological circuitry.
To address this gap, we systematically incorporated neuroscience-derived architectural components into CNNs to identify a set of mechanisms and architectures that more comprehensively explain V1 activity.
Upon enhancing task-driven CNNs with architectural components that simulate center-surround antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification, we uncover models with latent representations that yield state-of-the-art explanation of V1 neural activity and tuning properties.
Moreover, analyses of the learned parameters of these components and stimuli that maximally activate neurons of the evaluated networks provide support for their role in explaining neural properties of V1.
Our results highlight an important advancement in the field of NeuroAI, as we systematically establish a set of architectural components that contribute to unprecedented explanation of V1.
The neuroscience insights that could be gleaned from increasingly accurate in-silico models of the brain have the potential to greatly advance the fields of both neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

Explaining V1 Properties with a Biologically Constrained Deep Learning Architecture
Galen Pogoncheff
Jacob Granley
Department of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Santa Barbara, CA 93 106 galeenpogoncheffeucbb. edu
Michael Beyeler
Department of Computer Science
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 mbeyeler@ucab.cem edu
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have recently emerged promising mod- els of the ventral visual stream, despite their lack of biological specificity. While current state-of-the-an models of the primary visual cortex (V1) have surfaced from training with adversarial examples and extensively augmented data, these models are still unable to explain key neural properties observed in V1 that arise from bio- logical circuitry. To address this gap, we systematically incorporated neuroscience- derived architectural components into CNNs to identify a set of mechanisms and architectures that more comprehensively explain V1 activity. Upon enhancing surror-
task-driven CNNs with architectural components that simulate antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification, we uncover models with latent representations that yield state-of-the-art explama- tion of V1 neural activity and tuning properties. Moreover, analyses of the learned parameters of these components and stimuli that maximally activate neurons of the evaluated networks provide support for their role in explaining neural properties V1. Our results highlight an important advancement in the field NeuroAI, systematically establish unprecedented explanation of V1. The neuroscience insights that could be gleaned from increasingly accurate in-silico models of the brain have the potential to greatly advance the fields of both neuroscience and artificial intelligence.
of architectural components that contribute
Introduction
Many influential deep learning architectures and mechanisms that are widely used today, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [1] and mechanisms of attention [2-5], draw inspiration from biological intelligence. Despite decades of research into computational models of the visual system, understanding of its complexities remains far from complete. Existing neuroscientific models of the visual system (c.g., generalized mmcar-nonlincar models (6-9]) are often founded upon empirical observations from relatively small datasets, and are therefore unlikely to capture the true complexity of the visual system. While these models have successfully explained many properties of neural response to simple stimuli, their simplicity does not generalize to complex image stimuli [10].
37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2023).

---

Following their astounding success in computer vision, task-driven CNNs have recently been proposed as candidate models of the ventral stream in primate visual cortex [11-15], offering path towards models that can explain hidden complexities of the visual system and generalize to complex visual stimuli. Through task-driven training alone (and in some cases, training linear read-out layer (12-17J), representations that resemble neural activity at multiple levels of the visual hierarchy have been observed in these models [16]. With the emergence of such properties, CNNs are already being used to enhance our knowledge of processing in the ventral stream [18].
Despite these advancements, CNNs that achieve state-of-the-ae brain alignment are still unable to explain many properties of the visual system. Most traditional CNNs omit many well known architectural and processing hallmarks of the primate ventral stream that are likely key to the development of artificial neural networks (ANNs) that help us decipher the neural code. The development of these mechanisms remains an open challenge. of neural processing in the brain (for instance, in the ventral stream) could in turn contribute to significant leaps in artifical intelligence (Al) - an established goal of NeuroAl research [19, 20).
comprehensive understanding
In this work, we take a systematic approach to analyzing the hallmarks of the primate ventral stream that improve model-brain similarity of CNNs. We formulate architectural components that simulate these processing hallmarks within CNNs and analyze the population-level and neuron-level response properties of these networks, as compared empirical data recorded in primates. Specifically:
We enrich the classic ResNet50 architecture with architectural components based on neuroscience foundations that simulate cortical magnification, center-surround antagonism, local filtering, and tuned divisive normalization and show that the resulting network achieves top V1-overall score on the integrative Brain-Score benchmark suite [16]. Although some of these components have been studied before in isolation, here we demonstrate their synergistic nature through series of ablation studies that reveal the importance of each component and the benefits of combining them into a single neuro-constrained CNN.
We analyze the network parameters and stimuli that activate neurons to provide insights into how these architectural components contribute to explaining primary visual cortex (V1) activity in non-human primates.
2 Background and Related Work
Model-Brain Alignment One central challenge in the field of NeuroAl is the development of computational models that can effectively explain the neural code. To achieve this goal, artificial neural networks must be capable of accurately predicting the behavior of individual neurons and neural populations in the brain. The primary visual cortex (VI) is one of the most well studies areas of the visual system, with modeling efforts dating back to at least 1962 [21]-yet many deep learning models still fall short in explaining its neural activity.
The Brain- integrative benchmark [16] has recently emerged valuable tool for assessing the capabilities of deep learning models to explain neural activity in the visual system. This suite of benchmarks integrates neural recording and behavioral data from collection of previous studies and provides standardized metrics for evaluating model explainability of visual areas V1, V2, V4, and IT, as well additional behavioral and engineering benchmarks.
Although CNNs draw high-level inspiration from neuroscience, current architectures (c.g.. ResNet [22] and EfficientNet [23]) bear little resemblance to neural circuits in the visual system. While such differences may not necessarily hinder object recognition performance, these networks still fall short in mimicking many properties of highly capable visual systems. Although there may be many paths towards next-generation AI, foundational studies that have successfully merged foundations of neuroscience and AI have shown promising improvements to traditional ANNs
Center-Surround Antagonism As early as in the retina, lateral inhibitory connections establish a center-surround antagonism in the receptive field (RF) of many retinal cell types, which is preserved by neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus and the visual cortex. In the primate visual system, this center-surround antagonism is thought to facilitate edge detection, figure-ground segregation, depth perception, and cue-invariant object perception [27-30], and therefore fundamental property of visual processing.

---

A
Center
B
c
D
3
4
6
7
8
8
10
11
12
surround
Figure 1: Design patterns of neuro-constrained architectural components. A) Difference of Gaussian implements center-surround receptive field. B) Local receptive fields of two neurons without weight sharing. C) Tuned divisive normalization inhibits each feature map by Gaussian-weighted average of competing features, D) Log-polar transform simulating cortical magnification
Center-surrouue surround RFs are a common component classical neuroscience models [31-33], where they typically implemented using Difference of Gaussian (DoG) that produces an excitatory peak at the RF center with an inhibitory surround (Fig. IA). Although deep CNNs have the capacity to learn center-surround antagonism, supplementing traditional convolutional kernels with fixed-weight DoG kernels has been demonstrated to improve object recognition in the context of varied lighting, occlusion, and noise [34, 35].
Local Receptive Fields The composition of convolutional operations in CNNs enables hierarchical processing and translation equivariance, both of which are fundamental to core object recognition in the primate ventral visual stream. However, the underlying mechanism through which this is achieved is biologically implausible, as kernel weights are shared among downstream neurons. Though locally connected neural network layers can theoretically learn the same operation, traditional convolutions are typically favored in practice for their computational efficiency and performance benefits. However, local connectivity is ubiquitous pattern in the ventral stream (Fig. IB), and visual processing phenomena (e.g., orientation preference maps [36]) have been attributed to this circuitry pattern. In artificial neural systems, Lee er al. [37] observed the emergence of topographic hallmarks in the inferior temporal cortex when encouraging local connectivity in CNNs. Pogodin et al. [38] considered the biological implausibility of CNNs and demonstrated peuro-inspired approach to reducing the performance gap between traditional CNNs and conneeec networks, meanwhile achieving better alignment with neural activity primates.
Divisive Normalization Divisive normalization wide-spread across neural systems and species [39]. In early visual cortex, it is theorized to give rise to well-documented physiological phenomena, such as response saturation, sublinear summation of stimulus responses, and cross-orientation suppression [40].
In 2021, Burg and colleagues [41] introduced an image-computable divisive normalization model in which each artificial neuron was normalized by weighted responses of neurons with the same receptive field. In comparison to simple 3-layer CNN trained to predict the same stimulus responses, their analyses revealed that cross-orientation suppression was more prevalent in the divisive normalization model than the CNN, suggesting that divisive normalization may not be inherently learned by task- driven CNNs. In a separate study, Cirincione et al. [42] showed that simulating divisive normalization within a CNN can improve object recognition robustness to image corruptions and enhance alignment with certain tuning properties of primate V1.
Tuned Ciaiiaatiio/Cros-Chhaaa Inhibition While it is not entirely clear whether divisive normalization should be performed across space and/or across channels in computational models (implementations vary widely), Rust et al. [43] demonstrated that many response properties of cootion-ellectve cells in the middle temporal area, such as motion-opponent suppression and response normalization, emerge from a mechanism they termed "tuned normalization". In this scheme, a given neuron normalized by a pool of neurons that share the same receptive field but occupy a different region in feature space. We adopt this idea in the present work (Fig. IC), hypothesizing that enforcing feature-specific weights the pooling signal might enable deep net learn "opponent suppression" signals, much like orientation signals found in biological V1 [44, 45].

---

Cortically
Magnilled
Feature Map
Com 1xx
Barchomm
DoG Cony
Batchh
Conv xxxxx
Delchnorm
Tunedhoom
Conv 11x
Beichhoom
Cony 3
Deg Cany
Conv Conv1x1 1x1
Batchhom
Tuned
Comv x
Batchhom
Deich
Cono 1x1
BacchNom
Re U
Rel
0
ReL
Rei U
LocaFit
Rel
Reu U
BatchNomm
Canv x BatenNoam
Cany x
BateiNamm
Cany
V1 Readout
Figure 2: ResNet50 layer 1, supplemented with neuro-constraineed architectural components. Through- out the the modified layer 1, primary visual cortex (VI) activity is modeled with cortical magnification, center-surround convolutions, tuned normalization, and local receptive field layers. Layer output units are treated as artificial V1 neurons.
Cortical Magnification In many sensory systems, a disproportionately large area of the cortex is dedicated to processing the most important information. This phenomenon, known as cortical magnification, reflects the degree which the brain dedicates resources to processing sensory information accompanying a specific sense. In the primary visual cortex, larger proportion of cortical area processes visual stimuli presented the center of the visual field as compared stimuli at greater spatial eccentricities [46]. The relationship between locations in the visual field and corresponding processing regions the visual cortex has commonly been modeled with a log-polar mapping (Fig. ID) or derivations thereof [47-50].
Layers of artificial neurons of traditional CNNs have uniform receptive field sizes and do exhibit any sort of cortical magnification, failing to capture these distinctive properties of neuronal organization in the primary visual cortex. Recent works have demonstrated that introducing log polar-space sampling into CNNs can give rise to improved invariance and equivariance to spatial transformations [51, 52] and adversarial robustness [53].
Methods
3.1
Neuro-Constrained CNN Architecture
Given the previous state-of-the-at V1 alignment scores achieved with ResNet50 [25], we adopted this architecture our baseline and test platform. However, the architectural components that we considered in the work are modular and can be integrated into general CNNs architectures. The remainder of this subsection details the implementation and integration of each architec- tural component within a neuro-constrained ResNet. all experiments, we treated the output units from ResNet50 layer 1 "artificial V1" neurons (refer Section 3.2 for layer selection criteria). Fig. 2 depicts ResNe150 layer I after enhancement with neuroscience-basel architec- tural components. Code and materials required reproduce the presented work available gi thub. cww.bbiooiiciiiionlllb...o Pogooccef-- wwwpccchfff--Epppaannnn.ee Baeigg-V-iPooppee V1-Properties.
Center-Surround Antagonism Center-surround ANN layers are composed of DoG kernels of shape (c: X co x k x k), where e; and c, denote the number of input and output channels, respectively, and & reflects the height and width of each kernel. These DoG kernels (Fig. 1A) are convolved with the pre-activation output of a standard convolution. Each DoG kernel, DoG, is of the form
I +z²
DoGi(x,1) w) 2 o.eettr
exp
20 i,center
2To 2To isurroundd
exp
20 j.surronnd
(I)
seeete
where Osceeter and dssuurouudd were the Gaussian widths of the center and surround, respectively (Fi,center < dissuronnd) was a scaling factor, and (z, == (0,0) at the kernel center. For > 0 the kernel will have an excitatory center and inhibitory surround, while a < results kernel with inhibitory center and excitatory surround. Novel to this implementation, each DoG kernel has learnable parameters, better accommodating the diverse tuning properties of neurons within the network. As in [34, 35], these DoG convolutions were only applied to fraction of the input feature

---

map. Specifically, we applied this center-surround convolution to one quarter of all 3 x 3 convolutions in layer 1 of our neuro-constrained ResNet55..
Local Receptive Fields To untangle the effects of local connectivity on brain alignment, we modified the artificial V1 layer by substituting the final 3 3 convolution of ResNet50 layer 1 with 3 x 3 locally connected layer in isolation. This substitution assigns each downstream neuron its own filter while preserving its connection to upstream neurons (Fig. IB), following the pattern in [38].
Divisive Normalization We consider the divisive normalization block proposed in [42] which performs normalization both spatially and across feature maps using learned normalization pools. Following our experimental design principle of selectively modifying the network in the vicinity of the artificial V1 neurons, we added this divisive normalization block after the non-linear activation of each residual block in ResNet50 layer
Tuned Normalization We devised a novel implementation of tuned normalization inspired by models of opponent suppression [31, 43, 44]. In this scheme, given neuron is normalized by pool of neurons that share the same receptive field but occupy a different region in feature space (Fig. IC), in [41, 42]. Unlike the learned, weighted normalization proposed in [41], tuned inhibition was encouraged in our implementation by enforcing that each neuron was maximally suppressed by
neuron a different region of feature space, and that no other neuron is maximally inhibited by activity in this feature space. Letting "i, denote the activity of the neuron at spatial location (i,j)
and channel E [1, C*] after application of non-linear activation function. The postanooraiiiztion state of this neuron, o//., is given by:
J
(2)
1 Σ P6 C4
where Pe.l,..., Pe.C. defines a Gaussian distribution with variance of centered at channel (c + )) mod C. By defining of as a trainable parameter, task-driven training would optimize whether each neuron should be normalized acutely or broadly across the feature space.
As this mechanism preserves the dimension of the input feature map, it can follow any non-linen activation function of the core network without further modification to the architecture. Similar to the divisive normalization block, tuned normalization was added after the non-linear activation of each residual block in ResNet50 layer in experiments.
Cortical Magnification Cortical magnification and non-uniform receptive field sampling was simulated in CNNs using a differentiable polar sampling module (Fig. ID). In this module, the spatial dimension of an input feature map are divided into polar regions defined by discrete radial and angular divisions of polar space. In particular, we defined a discrete polar coordinate system partitioned in the first dimension by radial partitions ru, ('1, fi,,..,, ..., I' and along the second dimension by angular partitions 0, fI.... ..... 6n. Pixels of the input feature map that are located within the same polar region (i.e., are within the same radial bounds [r,, r++1) and angular bounds (8,,0++1) are pooled and mapped to coordinate (i. of the original pixel space (Fig. ID) [54]. Pixels in the output feature map with no associated polar region were replaced with interpolated pixel values from the same radial bin. By defining the spacing between each concentric radial bin to be monotonically increasing (i.c., for all E [1, m - 1]. (r+ ri-1) I (r++1 - rz)). visual information at lower spatial eccentricities with respect to the center of the input feature map consumes a larger proportion of the transformed feature map than information at greater eccentricities (Fig. F.
A notable result of this transformation is that any standard 2D convolution, with a kernel of size k x kt that is applied the the transformed features space is equivalent to performing a convolution in which the kernel covers a k x & contiguous region of polar space and strides along the angular and radial axes. Furthermore, downstream artificial neurons which process information at greater spatial eccentricities obtain larger receptive fields. Treating the CNN model of the ventral visual stream, this polar transformation immediately preceded ResNet50 layer (replacing the first max-pooling layer), where V1 representations were assumed to be learned.
5

---

3.2 Training and Evaluation
Training Procedure VI alignment was evaluated for ImageNet-trained models [55]. For all models, training and validation images were downsampled computational constraints. Each model of this evaluation was randomly initialized and trained for 100 epochs with initial learning rate of 0.1 (reduced by factor of 10 at epochs 60 and 80, where validation set performance was typically observed to plateau) and a batch size of 128.
resolution of 64 x 64 in consideration of
We additionally benchmarked each neuro-constrained model on the Tiny-ImageNette dataset to study the effect of V1 alignment on object recognition robustness [56] (evaluation details provided in Appendix H). trained here expected 64 x 64 input images and downsampling the corrupted images of ImageNer-C would have biased our evaluations. ImageNet pre-trained models were fine-tuned on Imageet prior to this evaluation. As a given model will learn alternative representations when trained on different datasets (thereby resulting in VI alignment differences), parameters of each ImageNet trained model, with the exception of the classification head, prior to 40 epochs of fine tuning with learning rate of 0.01 and batch size of 128.
was used as an alternative to ImageNet-C given that the models
methodologically froze all
Validation loss and accuracy were monitored during both training procedures. The model state that enabled the greatest validation accuracy during training was restored for evaluations that followed. Training data augmentations were limited to horizontal flipping (ImageNet and Tiny-ImageNet) and random cropping (ImageNet).
Training was performed using single NVIDIA 3090 and A A100 GPUs. Each model took approximately 12 hours to train on ImageNet and less than 30 minutes to fine-tune on Tiny- Imaeeee.
Evaluating V1 Alignment We evaluated the similarity between neuro-constrained models of V1 and the primate primary visual cortex using the Brain-Score V1 benchmark [16]. The V1 benchmark score is an average of two sub-metrics: 'V1 FreemanZiemba2013 and 'V1 Marques2020 which we refer to as VI Predictivity and VI Property scores what follows. For each metric, the activity of artificial neurons in given neural network layer is computed using in-silico neurophysiology experiments. The V1 Predictivity score reflects the degree to which the model can explain the variance in stimulus-driven responses of V1 neurons, as determined by partial least squares regression mapping. The V1 Property score measures how closely the distribution of 22 different neural properties, from 7 neural tuning categories (orientation, spatial frequency, response selectivity, receptive field size, surround modulation, texture modulation, and response magnitude), matches between the model's artificial neural responses and empirical data from macaque VI. Together, these two scores provide comprehensive view of stimulus response similarity between artificial and primate V1 neurons.
Train-Score evaluations assume defined mapping between units of an ANN layer and given brain region. In all analyses of VI alignment that follow, we systematically fixed the output neurons of ResNet50 layer as the artificial V1 neurons. Note that this is a more strict rule than most models submitted to the Brain-Score leaderboard, as researchers are able to choose which layer the deep net should correspond to the VI readout. In baseline analyses, among multiple evaluated layers, we observed highest VI alignment between artificial units and primate VI activity from layer 1, establishing it as strong baseline. Alternative layer VI scores are presented in Appendix B.
Results
4.1
Architectural Components in Isolation
Patterns of neural activity observed in the brain can be attributed to the interplay of multiple special- ized processes. Through an isolated analysis, our initial investigations revealed the contribution of specialized mechanisms to explaining patterns of neural activity in VI. Tables and present the results of this analysis, including ImageNet validation accuracy, V1 Overall, V1 Predictivity, and V1 Property scores.
Among the five modules evaluated this analysis, cortical magnification emerged as the most influential factor in enhancing V1 alignment. This mechanism substantially improved the ResNet's ability to explain the variance in stimulus responses, and the artificial neurons exhibited tuning properties that were more closely aligned with those of biological neurons, particularly in terms of

---

ImageNet Ace
V1 Overall
VI Predictivity
VI Property
Center-surround antagonism
.610 + .001
.455 = .002
.304 = .016
.786 = .018
Local receptive fields
.609 .001
.550 .006
.300 = .002
.799 .012
Divisive normalization
.606 .001
.543 = .003
.271 .014
.815 - .011
Tuned normalization
.608 + .002
.547 = .004
.274 .004
.820 = .009
Cortical magnification
.548 .008
.587 = .014
.370 = .008
.805 = .021
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.613 = .002
.550 = .004
.295 - .003
.805 .011
Table I: ImageNet object recognition classification performance (64 64 images) and primary visual cortex (V1) alignment scores of ResNet50 augmented with each architectural component. Mean and standard deviations are reported across three runs (random initialization, training, and evaluating) of each architecture. Scores higher than baseline are presented in green and those lower are presented in red (the more saturated the color is, the greater the difference from baseline).
Spatial frequency
Response
Surround modulation
Texture
Response
Orientation
selectivity
RF size
modulation
magnitude
Center Center-surround
.86 .02
.811 030
.632 .012
.853 1 .046
.773 1 .027
.757 .025
.783 .024
Local receptive fields
.01 + 021
817 + .016
618 + 008
852 + 004
.817 = 083
.713 036
.800 + .02
Divisive normalization
.088 + .017
.40 + .014
.689 + .007
.58 + 046
.800 + 070
.746 .00
.846 .019
Tuned normalization
.907 + .03
811 + .013
.689 + .223
865 + 031
.852 = 020
7442 029
.841 = .015
Cortical magnification
.907 + .037
848 003
.708 + .0111
803 + 004
.601
063
.789 058
.917 001
ResNer50 (Baseline)
803 .023
826 .048
.681
1 .099
.33 4 .880
820
.786 003
.790 .012
Table 2: Model alignment across the seven primary visual cortex (V1) tuning properties that constitute
the VI Property score. Mean and standard deviation of scores observed across three trials of model training and evaluation are reported.
orientation tuning, spatial frequency tuning, response selectivity, and most of all, stimulus response magnitude. However, the artificial neuronal responses of the cortical magnification network showed lower resemblance to those observed in primate V1 with regard to surround modulation, as compared the baseline network.
Simulating neural normalization within the ResNet resulted in artificial neurons that displayed improved alignment with primate VI in terms of response properties. Noteworthy enhancements were observed in the spatial frequency, receptive field size, surround modulation, and response magnitude properties of neurons within the modified network, leading improvements the V1 Property score. These results applied to both tuned and untuned forms of normalization.
In contrast, the introduction of center-surround convolutions yielded minimal improvements in neural predictivity and slight reductions in overall neuron property similarity. Surprisingly, gly, the surround modulation properties of the artificial neurons decreased compared to the baseline model, contrary to our expectations.
Finally, replacing the final 3 x 3 convolution preceding the artificial V1 readout with locally connected layer resulted in modest changes in VI alignment. This was one of the two mechanisms that led to improvements in the surround modulation response property score (tuned normalization being the other).
These findings collectively provide valuable insights into the individual contributions of each spe- cialized mechanism. Although mechanisms simulating center-surround antagonism (i.e., DoG convolution) and local connectivity provide little benefit to overall predictivity and property scores in isolation, we observed that they reduce the property dissimilarity gap among tuning properties that are nonetheless important and complement alignment scores where divisive normalization and cortical magnification do not.
4.2 Complementary Components Explain V1 Activity
Constraining ceneral-purpose deep learning model with single architectural component is likely insufficient to explain primate V1 activity given our knowledge that a composition of known circuits play pivotal roles in visual processing. This empirically observed in Section 4.1, wherein cortical
7

---

Center-
Local
Tuned Nor-
Cortical Mag- aification
Surround
malization
ImageNet Acc
VI Overall
VI Predictivity
VI Property
.551
.605
.357
.852
.43
.655
.353
.877
.541
.599
.340
858
.522
.592
.364
.820
V
.603
.555
.276
.834
.541
.598
.351
.845
.553
.593
.384
.803
.606
.561
.287
.835
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.633
.550
.295
.805
Table 3: Backward component elimination results. Checkmarks denote whether or not the architec- tural component was included in the model. Adversarial training was performed on the two models that tied for the top V1 Overall Score.
magnification was the only architectural component found to improve the overall VI alignment score. Taking inspiration from this design principle, we supplemented a ResNet50 with each architectural component and discern the necessary components to achieve optimal VI alignment in ablation study. We omitted the architectural component implementing divisive normalization, however, as it cannot be integrated simultaneously with tuned normalization, which observed yield slightly higher V1 Predictivity and Property scores in isolated component evaluation. Starting with ResNet which features all of these architectural components, we employed a greedy approach reminiscent of backward elimination feature selection to deduce critical components without having to evaluate every permutation of component subsets. In each round of this iterative approach, we selectively removed the architectural component that reduced overall VI alignment the most until only one feature remained. This analysis allowed us identify the subset of components that collectively yielded the most significant improvements in VI alignment, and unraveled the intricate relationship between these specialized features and their combined explanation of V1.
The results of the ablation study are presented in Table With the exception of center-surround antagonism, removing any neural mechanisms from the modified residual network reduced overall V1 alignment, suggesting that (1) each architectural component contributed to VI alignment (the utility of center-surround antagonism is detailed in Section 4.5) and (2) nontrivial interactions between these mechanisms explain V1 more than what is possible with any single mechanism. Seven of the eight models evaluated in this ablation study substantially outperformed all existing models on the Brain-Score platform in modeling V1 tuning property distributions. Furthermore, four models were observed to achieve ofte-of-the-ase VI Overall scores, explaining both VI stimulus response activity and neural response properties with high fidelity.
Whether or not feed-forward, ImageNet-trainee ANNs can fully approximate activity in primate V1 has stood as an open question. Previous studies have argued that no current model is capable of explaining all behavioral properties using neurons from single readout layer [17]. The top performing models of the current evaluation stand out as the first examples of CNNs with neural representations that accurately approximate all evaluated VI tuning properties (Appendix C), offering positive evidence for the efficacy of explaining primate VI with neuro-inspired deep learning architectures.
4.3 Component Contributions to V1 Alignment
Supplementing the quantitative studies of Sections 4.1 and 4.2, studying learned component parame- ters and visual stimuli that maximally activated artificial V1 neurons provided further insights into the role of these architectural components in explaining biological VI activity.
The V1 Property scores found in our ablation studies (Table 5) suggest the contribution of center- surround antagonism in aligning spatial frequency properties between artificial and biological representations. Optimized DoG kernlss implementing center-surround antagonism were commonly observed have center Gaussian distributions with low variance (i.e., small d² oeenter), suggesting preferences for patterns and textures with high spatial frequencies (Appendix Fig. F.2).

---

Center-
Local
Tuned Nor-
Cortical Mag- nification
Adversurial Training
Surround
RF
malization
ImageNet Ace
VI Overall
V1 Predictivity
VI Property
448
629
430
.29
448
625
430
819
Adversurially trained ResNet50 (Buseline)
.555
.81
3322
.00
Table 4: Adversarial training was performed on the two models that tied for the top VI Overall Score.
Checkmarks denote whether not the architectural component included in the model.
Regarding local receptive fields, hypothesized that removing weight sharing would enable greater diversity of response selectivity patterns to be learned. While multi-component ablation studies revealed reduction in response selectivity property scores when local filtering was omitted, the same finding was surprisingly not observed in the single-component analyses of Section 4.1.
Given the inter-neuron competition enforced by tuned normalization, one would expect networks with this component to learn more diverse artificial VI representations. Analyses of the visual stimuli that maximally activated artificial neurons of these networks (i.e., optimized visual inputs that maximally excite neurons of each channel of the artificial VI layer, computed via stochastic gradient ascent) provide evidence for this. Quantitatively, Image Patch Similarity (LPIPS) [57] between pairs of maximally activating stimuli of the tuned normalization network was less than that of the baseline ResNet50 network (p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA [58]). We suggest that this learned feature diversity contributed to the improvements in spatial frequency, response selectivity, receptive field size, surround modulation, and response magnitude tuning property scores when tuned normalization was present.
found that the mean Learned Perceptual
Finally, given the retinotopic organization of VI, we hypothesized that cortical magnification would give rise to better-aligned response selectivity and receptive field size tuning distributions, meanwhile improving V1 neuron predictivity. In each trial of our ablation studies for which cortical magnification was removed, these respective scores dropped, supporting this hypothesis.
4.4 Object Recognition Robustness to Corrupted Images
In contrast with the human visual system, typical CNNs generalize poorly to image cause model to output drastically different predictions than it would on the in-tact image. Recent studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between model-brain similarity and robustness to image corruptions [24-26, 42, 59] After fine-tuning each model's 's classification head on Tiny-ImageNet (see Section 3.2), we evaluated the object recognition accuracy of each model from Section 4.1 and the top two overall models from Section 4.2 on the Tiny-ImageNet-CC dataset. The results of these evaluations for each category of corruption and corruption strength are provided in Appendix H.
data. Small perturbations
Among the evaluated components, only tuned normalization was observed to yield improved corrupt image classification accuracy over the entire test set, albeit slight, beating the baseline accuracy (0.278) by 0.005 (i.e., an absolute improvement of .5%). More substantial improvements were observed on 'brightness', 'defocus blur', "elastic_transfeeee transform'. and 'pixelate" corruptions (improvements over the baseline of .00986, .00989, .0105, and mnd.0333 .0133, respectively).
4.5 Adversarially Training Neuro-Constrained ResNets
Adversarial training has previously been shown to enhance the brain-similarity of artificial neural representations without any modification the underlying network [25, 60]. Curious to whether adversarial training would further align the neuro-constrained ResNet50s with VI activity, we selec- tively trained the two networks most aligned with VI (one model with all architectural components and the other with all components except center-surround convolution) from Section 4.2 using "Free" adversarial training [61] (Appendix G). The results are shown in Table 4. Despite the drop object recognition accuracy, the artificial neural representations that emerged in each network were dras- tically better predictors of stimulus response variance representations. Tuning property alignment dropped in the process, but remained above previous state-of -hett-trttttt regardless. Interestingly, we found that the main difference in VI scores between these two models can be traced surround modulation tuning alignment. Center-surround convolutions indeed contributed improved surround

---

modulation tuning learned while training with on corrupted images, contrasting its apparent lack of contribution to the overall network suggested in the ablation study.
In sum, both networks achieved Rank-1 V1 Overall, Predictivity, and Property scores by large margins, setting new standard in this breed of brain-aligned CNNs. At the time of writing, the previous Rank-1 VI Overall, Predictivity, and Property scores were .594, .409, and 8816, respectively, and all achieved by separate models.
5 Discussion
Throughout this work we presented a systematic evaluation of four architectural components derived from neuroscience principles and their influence on model-V V1 similarity. Specifically, we studied task- driven CNNs enhanced with ANN layers that simulate principle processing mechanisms of the primate visual system including center-surround antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification. Through an ablation study and isolated component analyses, we found that each component contributed to the production of latent ANN representations that better resemble those of primate VI, as compared to traditional bascline CNN. When these four components were assembled together within a neuro-consten constraindd ResNet50, VI tuning properties were explained better than any previous deep learning model that we are aware of. Furthermore, this neuro-constranl constraied model exhibited state-of- sate-of-thhe-art explanation of V1 neural activity and is the first of its kind to do so, by large margin nonetheless, highlighting promising direction in biologically constrained ANNs. Training this model with "free" adversarial training greatly improved its ability to predict primate neural response to image stimuli a minor sacrifice tuning property similarity, establishing an even larger gap between previous state of the art.
Among all architectural components examined in this work, cortical magnification was the most influential to improving V1 alignment. This mechanism on its own could not explain the neural activity comprchensively the top models of this study, however. Our implementation of tuned normalization provided substantial improvement to VI tuning property aligmment, and was the only component that contributed to model robustness. The importance of center-surround antagonism seemed to be training data-dependent. In our ablation study, for which all models were trained on ImageNet, sunter-surround convolutional layers did not contribute to overall VI scores. This did not surprise us, as deep CNNs have the capacity to learn similar representations without these specialized layers. When training on adversarially perturbed data, however, the center-surround antagonism provided by this layer appeared to improve surround modulation tuning properties of artificial V1 neurons. While previous attempts at improving model-brain similarity have been highly dataset dependent, our results highlight the importance of artificial network design.
A notable limitation to work is the reduction in ImageNet classification performance that was observed upon the introduction of cortical magnification. While maintaining baseline model accuracy was not motivation of this work, we imagine situations in which object recognition performance needs to be preserved alongside these improvements in brain- train- alignment. The implementation of cortical magnification in this work assumed that the model's gaze was focused at the center of each image. Consequently, visual stimuli at greater eccentricities from the image center were under-sampled during the polar transformation (Fig. F.1), making images for which the object of interest was not located at the image center (common in ImageNet) more challenging to classify. One scope of future work involves implementing saliency- or attention-driven polar transformations that dynamically focus the center of the polar map on, or near, an object of interest as opposed to being fixed at the image center. We demonstrate the efficacy of this strategy with a naive proof of concept in which classification is performed by averaging predictions from the five static crops of each image [62]. This simple strategy improved the validation accuracy of the network with all components from 55.1% to 59.9% without affecting V1 scores. A more sophisticated, dynamic strategy could further reduce this accuracy drop. We additionally plan to extend this work to model architectures other than ResNet to validate the widespread application of each of these neuro-constrained components.
This work highlights important advancement in the field of NeuroAI, as we systematically establish a set of contrrienstt architectural components that contribute to state-of-the-an V1 alignment. We argue that our architecture-driven approach can be further generalized to additional areas of the brain as well. The neuroscience insights that could be gleaned from increasingly accurate in-silico models of the brain have the potential to transform the fields of both neuroscience and AI.
10

---

References
[1] Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436 444, May 2015.
[2] Laurent Itti, Christof Koch, and Emst Niebur. A model of saliency- visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEFF Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 20( 20:11)1254-1255 1998.
[3] Hugo Larochellc and Geoffry E Hinton. Learning combine foveal glimpses with third-order boltzmann machine. Advances neural information processing systems, 23, 2010.
[4] Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2048-2057. PMLR, 2015.
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin, Attention all you need. Advances neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
[6] David Heeger, Eero P Simoncelli, and Anthony Movshon. Computational models of cortical visual processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(2):623-627, 1996.
[7] Matteo Carandini. David J Heeger, and Anthony Movshon. Linearity and normalization simple cells of the macaque primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 17(21)8621-8644 1997.
[8] Nicole Rust, Odelia Schwartz, Anthony Movshon, Eero Simoncelli. Spatiotemporal elements of macaque v1 receptive fields. Neuron, 46(6):945-98 956, 2005.
[9] Brett Vintch, Anthony Movshon, and Eero Simoncelli. A convolutional subunit model for neuronal responses in macaque v1. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(44): 14841, 2015.
[10] Matteo Carandini, Jonathan B. Demb, Valerio Mante, David Tolhurst. Yang Dan. Bruno A. Olshausen, Jack L. Gallant, and Nicole C. Rust. Do We Know What the Early Visual System Does? Journal of Neuroscience, 25(46):00577-0053 November 2005.
[11] Daniel L Yamins, Ha Hong. Charles Cadieu, and James J DiCarlo. Hicrarchical Modular Optimization of Convolutional Networks Achieves Representations Similar to Macaque IT and Human Ventral Stream. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013.
[12] Daniel L. K. Yamins, Ha Hong, Charles F. Cadicu, Ethan A. Solomon, Darren Seibert, and James J. DiCarlo. Performance-opiinize. hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences, 111(23):819-8622, June 2014.
[13] Daniel I.. K. Yamins and James J. DiCarlo. Using goal-driven deep learning models to understand sensory cortex. Nature Nearoscience, 19(3):356-365, March 2016. Number: 3 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[14] Najib J. Majaj, Ha Hong, Ethan A. Solomon, and James J. DiCarlo. Simple Learned Weighted Sums of Inferior Temporal Neuronal Firing Rates Accurately Predict Human Core Object Recognition Performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(39):13402 13418. September 2015. Publisher: Society for Neuroscience Section: Articles.
[15] Santiago A. Cadena, George H. Denfield, Edgar Y. Walker, Lcon A. Gatys, Andreas S. Tolias, Matthias Bethge, and Alexander S. Ecker. Deep convolutional models improve predictions of macaque VI responses to natural images. PLOS Computational Biology, 15(4):e 1006897, April 2019. Publisher: Public Library of Science
[16] Martin Schrimpf, Jonas Kubilius, Ha Hong, Najib J. Majaj, Rishi Rajalingham, Elias B. Issa, Kohitij Kar, Pouya Bashivan, Jonathan Prescott-Roy. Franziska Geiger, Kailyn Schmidt, Daniel L. K. Yamins, and James J. DiCarlo. Brain-Score: Which Artificial Neural Network for Object Recognition is most Brain-Like?, January 2020.
Pages: 407007
Section: New Results.
[17] Tiago Marques, Martin Schrimpf, and James DiCarlo. Multi-scale hierarchical neural network models that bridge from single neurons in the primate primary visual cortex to object recognition behavior, August 2021. Pages: 2021.03.01 10.00........ .433495
Section: New Results.
[18] Pouya Bashivan, Kohitij Kar, and James J. DiCarlo. Neural population control via deep image synthesis. Science, 364(6439).caav446 May 2019. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

---

[19] Demis Hassabis, Dharshan Kumaran, Christopher Summerfield, and Matthew Botvinick. Neuroscience- inspired artificial intelligence. Neuron, 95(2):245-258, 2017.
[20] Anthony Zador, Sean Escola, Blake Richards, Bence Ōlveczky. Yoshua Bengio, Kwabena Boahen, Matthew Botvinick, Dmitri Chklovskii, Anne Churchland, Claudia Clopath, James DiCarlo, Surya Ganguli, Jeff Hawkins, Konrad Körding, Alexei Koulakov, Yann LeCun, Timothy Lillicrap, Adam Marblestone, Bruno Olshausen, Alexandre Pouget, Cristina Savin, Terrence Sejnowski, Ecro Simoncelli, Sara Solla, David Sussillo, Andreas S. Tolias, and Doris Tsao. Catalyzing next-generation artificial intelligence through neuroai. Nature Communications, 14(1):1597, Mar 2023.
[21] David H Hubel and Torsten N Wiesel. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's 's visual cortex. The Journal of physiology. 160(1):106, 1962. Publisher: Wiley-Blackwer
[22] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770-778, 2016.
[23] Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 6105-61 14. PMLR, 2019.
[24] Zhe Li, Wieland Brendel, Edgar Walker, Erick Cobos, Taliah Muhammad, Jacob Reimer, Matthias Bethge, Fabian Sinz, Zachary Pitkow, and Andreas Tolias. Learning from brains how to regularize machines. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019.
[25] Joel Dapello, Tiago Marques, Martin Schrimpf. Franziska Geiger, David Cox, and James J DiCarlo. Simulating a Primary Visual Cortex at the Front of CNNs Improves Robustness to Image Perturbations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 13073-13000 Curran Associates,
Inc., 2020.
[26] Manish V. Reddy, Andrzej Banburski, Nishka Pant, and Tomaso Poggio. Biologically Inspired Mechanisms for Adversarial Robustness, June 2020. arXiv:2006. 16427 [cs, stat).
[27] J. Allman, F. Miezin, and E. McGuinness. Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field: neurohyysooloicall mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons. Annual Review of Newroxcience, 8:407-430, 1985.
[28] J. J. Knierim and D. C. van Essen. Neuronal responses to static texture patterns in area VI of the alert macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology 67(4)9961-88, April 1992. Publisher: American Physiological Society.
[29] Gary A. Walker, Izumi Ohzawa, and Ralph D. Freeman. Asymmetric Suppression Outside the Classical Receptive Field of the Visual Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(23):10536-10553 December 1999. Publisher: Society for Neuroscience.
[30] Zhi-Ming Shen, Wei-Feng Xu, and Chao- Yi Li. Cue-invariant detection of surroud discontinuity by V1 neurons in awake macaque monkey. The Journal of Physiology, 583(Pt 2):581-592, September 2007.
[31] Gregory C DeAngelis, RALPH D Freeman, and IZUMI Ohzawa. Length and width tuning of neurons in the cat's primary visual cortex. Journal of neurophysiology. 71(1):347-374, 1994.
[32] Michael P Sceniak, Dario L Ringach, Michael J Hawken, and Robert Shapley. Contrast's effect on spatial summation by macaque VI neurons. Nature neuroscience, 2(8) 739, 1999, Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[33] Michael P Sceniak, Michael J Hawken, and Robert Shapley. Visual spatial characterization of macaque VI neurons. Journal of neurophysiology 85(5):1873-1887, 2001. Publisher: American Physiological Society Bethesda, MD.
[34] Hosein Hasani, Mahdieh Soleymani, and Hamid Aghajan. Surround Modulation: Bio-inspired Con- nectivity Structure for Convolutional Neural Networks. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d' Alché-Buc, Buc, E. Fox, and R. Gameett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019.
[35] Zahra Babaice, Ramin Hasami, Mathias I Lechner, Daniela Rus, and Radu Grosu. On-off center-surround receptive fields for accurate and robust image classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 478-489, PMLR, 2021.
[36] Alexei A koulakov and Dmitri B Chklovskii Orientation preference patterns in mammalian visual cortex: wire length minimization approach. Newron, 29(2):519 527, 2001. Publisher: Elsevier.
12

---

[37] Hyodong Lee, Eshed Margalit, Kamila M. Jozwik, Michael A. Cohen, Nancy Kanwisher, Daniel L. K. Yamins, and James J. DiCarlo. Topographic deep artificial neural networks reproduce the hallmarks of the primate inferior temporal cortex face processing network. preprint, Neuroscience, July 2020.
[38] Roman Pogodin, Yash Mehta, Timothy Lillicrap, and Peter Latham. Towards Biologically Plausible Convolutional Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 13992-13936. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021.
[39] Matteo Carandini and David J. Heeger. Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(1):51-62, January 2012. Number: I Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[40] David J. Heeger and Klavdia O. Zemlianova. A recurrent circuit implements normalization, simulating the dynamics of VI activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (7736)))2444-22555 September 2020. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[41] Max F Burg, Santiago A Cadena, George H Denfield, Edgar Y Walker, Andreas Tolias, Matthias Bethge, and Alexander Ecker. Learning divisive normalization primary visual cortex. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(6)e1009028, 2021. Publisher: Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA.
[42] Andrew Cirincione, Reginald Verrier, Artiom Bic, Stephanic Olaiya, James J DiCarlo, Lawrence Udeigwe, and Tiago Marques. Implementing Divisive Normalization in CNNs Improves Robustness to Common Image Corruptions.
[43] Nicole C. Rust, Valerio Mante, Eero P. Simoncelli, and J. Anthony Movshon. How MT cells analyze the motion of visual patterns. Nature Neuroscience, 911):1421-1431, November 2006. Number: 11 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[44] M Concetta Morrone, DC Burr, and Lamberto Maffci. Functional implications of cross-oricntation inhibition cortical visual cells. I. Neurophysiological evidence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 216( 2216(1204)))) (100)12334))3355 354, 1982. Publisher: The Royal Society London.
[45] GC DeAngelis, JG Rohson, Ohzawa, and RD Freeman. Organization of suppression in receptive fields of neurons in cat visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68(1):144-163, 1992.
[46] PM Daniel and D Whitteridge. The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. The Journal of physiology. 159(2):203, 1961. Publisher: wlackwl..
[47] Fric I. Schwartz. Spatial mapping in the primate sensory projection: analytic structure and relevance to perception. sybereittlcybemetttss
1977. Publisher: Springer.
[48] Eric L Schwartz. Computational anatomy and functional architecture of striate cortex: spatial mapping approach to perceptual coding. Vision research, 20(8):655- 669, 1980. Publisher: Elsevier.
[49] Erie I. Schwartz. Computational studies of the spatial architecture of primate visual cortex: columns, maps, and protomaps. Primary visual cortex in primates, pages 359-411, 1994. Publisher: Springer.
[50] Jonathan Polimeni, Mukund Balasubramanian, and Eric L. Schwartz. Multi-area visuotopic map complexes in macaque striate and extra-striate cortex. Vision research, 46/20):3336-3359, 2006. Publisher: Elsevier.
[51] Carlos Esteves, Christine AllnheBBa Xiaowei Zhou and Kostas Danilidis. Polar Transformer Networks. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
[52] João F. Henriques and Andrea Vedaldi. Warped Convolutions: Efficient Invariance to Spatial Transforma- tions, 2021. _eprint: 1609.04 043822..
[53] Taro Kiritani and Koji Ono. Recurrent Attention Model with Log-Polar Mapping is Robust against Adversarial Attacks, 2020. .eprint: 2002.05388.
[54] M.R. Blackbum. Simple Computational Model of Center-Surround Receptive Fields in the Retina. Technical report. Section: Technical Reports.
[55] Deng, Wei Dong. Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet: large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248-255 June 2009. ISSN: 1063-6919.
[56] Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corrup- tions and Perturbations, March 2019. arXiv:1903.12244 [cs, stat].
13

---

[57] Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features perceptual metric. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586-595, 2018.
[58] Amanda Ross and Victor L. Willson. One One-Way Anova, pages 21-24. SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2017.
[59] Shahd Safarani, Arne Nix, Konstantin Willeke, Santiago Cadena, Kelli Restivo, George Denfield, Andreas Tolias, and Fabian Sinz. Towards robust vision by multi-task learning on monkey visual cortex. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 739-751. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021.
[60] Alexander Riedel. Bag of Tricks for Training Brain-Like Deep Neural Networks. March 2022.
[61] Ali Shafahi, Mahyar Najibi, Mohammad Amin Ghiasi, Zheng Xu, John Dickerson, Christoph Studer, Larry $ Davis, Gavin Taylor, and Tom Goldstein. Adversarial training for free! In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume Curran Associates, Inc., 2019.
[62] Manish Reddy Vuyyuru, Andrzej Banburski, Nishka Pant, and Tomaso Poggio. Biologically inspired mechanisms for adversarial robustness. In Larochelle, M. Ranzato, Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 2135-2146. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020.
14

---

Appendix
A
Supplemental Model Diagrams
Fig. A.I depicts the modifications made to ResNet50 residual layer 1 in the isolated component analyses of section 4.1. All multi-component (composite) models analyzed Section 4.2 relied on combinations of these modifications (as exemplified in Fig. 2).
Map
Batchlorm
Booch
x
Baich BatchNlorm
Batch
BatchHorm
Batchhlerm
Batch
BatchWorm
Conv x
Daich Norm
ReLL
ReL
Layer
Con
BatchhNam
BatchNom
BatchhNam
V1 Readout
(A) ResNet50 baseline
Post-pooling Map
Conv X
Betch Rel
DrG Camy
ReLL
Cony x
Batchn
Berchhorm
Conv
DoG Comy.
Ratch
BarchWorm
ReLU
Cony x
Batch
Rej
Conv x
DoG Cony
Ratchtorm
ReLu
Bareh
Relu
Lager
Cony x
Batchhoem
BatchNorm
Conv x1
BatshNomm
(B) Center-surround antagonism
Post-pooling
Map
BatchNom
BatchNom
Comy x Batchtom
Batchhom
Batchhorm
Narch
Natch
Locaiig 3d
Conv x
BetchNorm
Resuu
Reg.
Rel
Conu
Rei U
Reil
BaickNorm
BatchNorm
Cony
Readout
(C) Local receptive fields
Post-pooling
Feature Map
BatchWomm
BatchWor RetU
Cony Xx1 Balchhunm
Norm
Batchivom
BatchWorm
Batich BatichWlam
Diy Norm
BatchWar
BatchMomm
Cone xu1
Natch/aam
Noam
ReLU
Layer
Conv
Conv
Ree
NatchNoom
NarchNorm
NatchWoo
V1 Readout
(D) Divisive normalization
15

---

Post-pooling
Feature Map
X
BatchNom
Batchuum
Rei.
Conv X
BatchNoom
TuresNoom
Batchuum
Rel.
BatchNam
Batchtoom
Rei
Turns
Cony 1x1
Batehhium
Rol U
Conu 2omu3x33 x
Rei U
Conv x
BalchhNom
Tuneshomm
BatenNor
BatchNorm
Cone x
VL Readout
(E) Tuned normalization
Corriclly
Magnified
Feature Mep
X
BatchWom
BatchWom ReLL
Cony x
Batchhomm
ReLU
BatchWam
ReLL
BatchhWmm
ReLL
Batch Batch/oom Norm
Rell
Conv
Batchhoomm
Rel U
Conv 3 x
Rel
Conv x
Datch/oom
ReLL
BatchNom
BalchNom
Cony 1x Ratehhinm
Readout
(F) Cortical magnification
Figure A.1: ResNet50 residual layer supplemented with individual neuro-constrained architectural components, in section 4.1. (A) No modification (baseline ResNet50 layer 1). (B) with center- surround antagonism, (C) with local receptive field (RF), (D) with divisive normalization, (E) with tuned normalization, (F) with cortical magnification.
16

---

B V1 Scores of Alternate Layers of Baseline Network
When evaluating model Brain-Score, users are permitted to commit mapping between model layers and areas of the ventral stream. Model-bran alignment is computed for each mapped pair in the Brain-Score Score evaluation. To promote fair evaluation, we sought find the layer that yielded optimal VI alignment from the baseline ResNet50 model and fix this layer as the artificial VI readout layer in of our tested models. It is worth noting that after supplementing the base ResNet50 with neuro-constrained components, this layer may no longer offer optimal VI alignment in the augmented network. In spite of this, we maintain this layer as our artificial VI readout layer for fair evaluation.
To find the ResNet50 layer with the best VI Overall, Predictivity, and Property scores, we compared total 20 different hidden layers (Fig. B.1). 16 of these layers corresponded to the post-activation hidden states of the network. The remaining 4 were downsampling layers of the first bottleneck block of each residual layer in the network, as these have previously demonstrated good V1 aligmment [25]. Aside from these downsampling layers, hidden layers that did not follow a ReLU activation were omitted from this evaluation as the activities of these states can take on negative values and are therefore less interpretable neural activities. Among all evaluated layers, the final output of ResNet50 residual layer (i.e., the output of the third residual block of ResNet50) offered the highest VI Overall score, and was therefore selected as the artificial VI readout layer in all of our experiments.
0.9
0.8
V1 Score
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.1.d
1.1
1.3
2.1.d
4.3
ResNet50 Artificial V1 Readout Location
V1 Overall
V1 Predictivity (Freemanniembaz2033
V1 Property (Marques2020)
Figure B.I: VI alignment Brain-Scores for 20 different hidden layers of ResNet50, In the plot above. readout location 'X.Y' denotes that artificial V1 activity was evaluated from residual block 'Y" of residual layer 'X'. Readout location suffixed with 'dd' correspond to downsampling layers of the associated residual bottleneck. Highest VI overall score came from block 3 of residual layer
17

---

C Expanded Model Tuning Properties
Primary visual cortex (V1) tuning property alignments for each composite model evaluated in Section 4.2 are presented in Table 5. Tuning property similarities are computed as ceiled Kolmogorov- Smirnov distance between artificial neural response distributions from the model and empirical distributions recorded in primates [16, 17].
Surround Modulation
Response Selectivity
Texture Modulation
Center-Suee Surround
Spatial Frequency
Tuned Norm.
Cortical Mag.
Adv. Training
Response Mag
Orientation
Local RF
RF Size
.891
.925
.756
.840
.779
.844
.930
.858
.919
.780
.834
.808
.871
.930
.894
.932
.750
.851
.755
.858
.946
.878
.873
.739
.816
.719
.802
.910
.855
.873
.702
.808
.890
.855
.870
.873
.886
.735
.840
.744
.825
.959
.902
.866
.715
.801
.625
.411
.869
.915
.817
.898
.802
.911
.924
.863
.773
.797
.733
.815
.899
.944
.768
.806
.673
.811
.900
Table 5: Ablation study model alignment across the seven primary visual cortex (V1) tuning properties that constitute the VI Property score ('Maa"ues2020') of Brain-Score. Checkmarks denote whether or not the architectural component was included in the model.
D V1 Brain-Scores of Untrained Models
V1 Overall
V1 Predictivity
V1 Property
Center-surround antagonism
.298
.245
.551
Local receptive fields
.477
.210
.743
Divisive normalization
.499
.207
.792
Tuned normalization
.471
.218
.724
Cortical magnification
.497
.276
.718
All Components
.483
.225
.741
ResNet50
.466
.223
.710
Table 6: primary visual cortex (V1) alignment scores untrained ResNet50 model variants.
E
V2, V4, and IT Brain-Scores of Top Model
Table 7 shows the Srain-Scores of our top performing V1 model (the adversarially trained ResNet50 with all architectural components) for brain areas V2, V4, and IT. Network layers were mapped to visual areas V2, V4, and IT by finding the layers that achieve the best scores on these visual area benchmarks, as evaluated on Brain-Score's 's publicly available evaluation set.
Visual Area Brain-Score
V2
V4
IT
.988
.245
.551
Table 7: V2, V4, and IT Brain-Scores of adversarially trained ResNet50 with all architectural components.
18

---

Supplemental Visualizations
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Figure F.1: Cortical magnification disproportionately samples the input image (or feature map). (A) Original image in which the object of interest (cat) is centered in the image frame. (B) Image (A) after the simulated cortical magnification transform. the cat offset from image center. (D) Image (C) after the simulated cortical magnification transform
(C) Different crop of the original image, with
(A)
(C)
Figure F.2: Visual stimuli that maximally activate artificial neurons of (A) baseline, (B) center- surround, and (C) tuned normalized ResNer50 networks. Maximally activating images generated using the python package 'lucent" (https://https: htt///gitttttutt comm/grreettrap///ccn)))
19

---

G
Adversarial Training
The neuro-constrained ResNets discussed in Section 4.5 were trained using the "Free" adversarial training method proposed by Shafahi et al. [61]. In Projected Gradient Descent (PGD)-based adversarial training (a typical approach to adversarially training robust classifiers), network is trained on adversarial samples that are generated on the fly during training. Specifically, in PGD- based adversarial training, a batch of adversarial images is first generated through a series of iterative perturbations to original image batch, at which point the parameters of the network are finally updated according to the network's loss, as evaluated on the adversarial examples. "Free" adversarial training generates adversarial training images with similar approach, but the parameters of the network are simultancously updated with every iteration of image perturbation, significantly reducing training time. The authors refer to these mini-batch updates as "replays", and refer to the number of replays of each mini-batch with the parameter m.
The adversarially trained models of Section 4.5 were trained with m = 4 replays and perturbation clipping of 255" These models were trained for 120 epochs using a stochastic gradient descent optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.1, which was reduced by factor of 10 every 40 epochs, momentum of 0.9, and weight decay of 1 x 10-5, Each model was initialized with the weights that were learned during traditional ImageNet training for the analyses in Section 4.2. "Free" adversarial training was performed using code provided by the authors of this method (https: // gigghuu.... co http///aaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeerrrraa
H Robustness to Common Image Corruptions
H.1 Dataset Description
We evaluated image classification robustness to common image corruptions using the Tiny-ImageNet C dataset [56]. Recall that Iiny-mmagNNet-CC was used instead of ImageNet-C, because our models were trained 64 x 64 input images. Downscaling ImageNet-C images would have potentially altered the intended corruptions and biased our evaluations.
Iiny-ImageNet-C is among collection of corrupted datasets (e.g., ImageNet-C,, CIFAR-1O-C, CIFAR-100-C) that feature a diverse set of corruptions to typical benchmark datasets. Hendrycks and Dietterich [56] suggest that given the diversity of corruptions featured in these datasets, performance on these datasets can be seen as a general indicator of model robustness. The Liny-ImaeeNet-G evaluation dataset consists of images from that Imageee validation dataset that have been corrupted according to 15 types of image corruption, each of which is categorized as a 'noise', 'blur', 'weather', or 'digital' corruption. The 15 corruption types include: Gaussian noise, shot noise, impulse noise, defocus blur, frosted glass blur, motion blur, zoom blur, snow, frost, fog, brightness, contrast, elastic transformation, pixelation, and JPEG compression. Each corruption is depicted in Fig. H.1. Every image of this evaluation dataset is also corrupted at five levels of severity (the higher the corruption severity, the more the original image had been corrupted). Corruption severities for Gaussian noise are exemplified in Fig. H.2.
20

---

Gaussian Noise
Impulse Noise
Shot Noise
Delocus Blur
Glass Blur
Motion Blur
Zoom Blur
Brightness
Frost
Snow
Contrast
Elastic Transform
JPEG Compression
Pixelation
Figure H.1: 15 corruptions of the Tiny-ImageNete dataset, applied sample image from Tiny- ImageNet-C. First row: noise corruptions. second row: blur corruptions, third row: weather corrup- tions, bottom row: digital corruptions. All corruptions shown severity level 3.
Corruption Severity
Figure H.2: Gaussian noise corruption, shown at corruption severity levels 1-5.
21

---

H.2 Corrupted Image Robustness
detailed breakdown Tiny-ImageNee C image classification accuracy for each kingle-componee neuro-conste consttaindd ResNet-50 and the composite models that achieved top V1 Overall score without adversarial training are provided in Tables 8, 9, and 10.
Val.
Tiny-ImageNet-CC
A
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.742 + .003
.278 = .004
.463 .006
Center-surround antagonism
.739 + .004
.277 + .008
.463 .009
Local Receptive Fields
.741 + .002
.275 - .004
.467 + .004
Tuned Normalization
.740 = .001
.283 = .006
.457 = .006
Cortical Magnification
.683 + .001
.222 + .009
.461 .009
Composite Model A
.694
.231
.463
Composite Model B
.691
.232
.459
Table 8: Classification accuracy of models on Imay-Ima validation and Siny-ImageNee--- (all corruption types and severities) datasets. Composite Model A includes all 4 constrrindt architectural components (center-surround antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification). Composite Model B contained all architectural components, with the exception of center-surround antagonism. For baseline and single-component models, mean accuracies (#: one standard deviation) are reported, where each trial was associated with distinct base model from the repeated trials of section 4.1.
Corruption Severity
2
5
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.418 .004
.345 + .005
.269
.004
.204 .005
.156
.003
Center-surround antagonism
.414 .010
.33 = .009
.267 = .009
.203 + .006
.166 1 .004
Local Receptive Fields
.16 .003
.311 +: .003
.261 + .003
.199 + .002
.153 + .002
Tuned Normalization
424 + .006
.350 + .006
274 + .007
208 + .006
.160 + .004
Cortical Magnification
.349 + _011
.277 + .013
.208
.100
.157 .007
.120
-006
Composite Model A
.363
.289
.216
.163
.125
Composite Model B
.361
.219
.165
.127
Table 9: Classification accuracy of models Liny-ImageNet-C at each level of corruption severity. Composite Model A includes all 4 neuro-constrained architectural components (center-surround antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification). Composite architectural components, with the exception of center-surrount antagonism.
Model B contained For baseline and single-component models, mean accuracies (#: standard deviation) reported, where each trial was associated with a distinct base model from the repeated trials of section 4.1.
22

---

Noise Corruptions
Gaussian Noise
Impulse Noise
Shot Noise
Avg.
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.197 .011
.191 .010
.232 .013
.077 .011
Center-surround antagonism
.195 = .010
.186 .009
.232 .012
.204 .010
Local Receptive Fields
.18 = 006
.184 + 009
.219 = .010
.196 .008
Tuned Normalization
.195 = .088
.192 + .004
.228 = .007
.205 = .006
Cortical Magnification
.150 .008
.157 .007
.180 .011
.162 .008
Composite Model A
.151
.156
.184
.164
Composite Model B
.144
.149
.177
.157
Blur Corruptions
Defocus Blur
Glass Blur
Motion Blur
Zoom Blur
Avg.
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.224 .003
.182 .001
.272 1 .003
.241 .004
.230 + .002
Center-surround antagonism
.223
.009
.184 + -004
.274 274+-00 .012
.213 + 001
.231 + .009
Local Receptive Fields
.228 = .006
.183
.004
.273 + .005
.243 + .008
.232 + .005
Tuned Normalization
234
.009
.188
.002
.277 + .009
.248 1 .010
.23 1 .007
Cortical Magnification
.174 .010
.162
.008
.222
.007
.190
.006
.187 .008
Composite Model A
.186
.167
.236
.200
.197
Composite Model B
.196
.174
.249
.222
.200
Weather Corruptions
Brightness
Fog
Frost
Snow
Avg.
ResNer50 (Baseline)
.401 + .005
.282 + .003
.60 + .006
.310 .004
.338 + .004
Center-surround antagonism
.399 + .008
.270 + .008
.377 = .012
.302 + .003
.332 + .007
Local Receptive Fields
.388 1 .008
.275 1 .005
.351 1 .006
.298 .004
.331 1 .003
Tuned Normalization
.410 + .008
.282 + .011
.361
.006
.311 .010
.341
.008
Cortical Magnification
.327 .011
.211 + .013
.283
.014
.248 .010
.267 .011
Composite Model A
.338
.220
.286
.258
.275
Composite Model B
.327
.225
2844
.255
.273
Digital Corruptions Elastic
Contrast
JPEG
Pixelate
Avg.
ResNet50 (Baseline)
.125 +: .001
.311 +: .007
.51 + .007
.371 :: .003
.321 + .003
Conter-surround antagonism
.122 + .002
.331 + .014
.455 + .007
.374 + .004
.321 + .006
Local Receptive Fields
.100 + .004
.329 + .003
.457 + .005
.375 .002
.320 1 .001
Tuned Normalization
.128 .008
+ .010
.463
.006
.387 .006
.330
.007
Cortical Magnification
.082 .005
.287 1 .007
.374 .013
.287 .014
.257
.010
Composite Model A
.081
.305
.397
.303
.272
Composite Model B
.086
.314
.383
.293
.269
Table 10: Corrupted image classification accuracy by corruption type. Composite Model A includes all 4 neuro- connsr-nnttt architectural components (center-surround antagonism, local receptive fields, tuned normalization, and cortical magnification). Composite Model B contained all architectural components, with the exception of center-surround antagonism. For baseline and ainle-componeee models, mean accuracies (+: one standard deviation) are reported, where each trial was associated with distinct base model from the repeated trials of section 4.1.
I Code Availability
Code and materials required to reproduce the work presented in this paper available at github.cm wwtp:/ioowwiiiiiollabooooooooooa
23


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "o4GMRfXiuR", "reviewer": "Reviewer_bbGj", "summary": "This paper incorporates a wide range of biologically inspired components into the initial stages of a ResNet model to see if these result in improved alignment with properties of V1 neurons.  Specifically, the authors incorporate architectural components for Center-Surround, Local Receptive Fields, Divisive Normalization, Tuned Normalization, and Cortical Magnification. They find that some of these components are complementary when explaining different properties of V1. Adversarial training further improves the match to V1 responses. ", "questions": "a)\tIt would be helpful to include a model with *just* adversarial training and none of the biological components as an additional baseline model in Table 3. \n\nb)\tI’m a bit confused about the greedy backwards elimination approach. Was the architectural component that “reduced overall V1 alignment” selected specifically at that given stage of the architecture (ie was a model trained eliminating each component separately, and then just one was chosen?) Or was this elimination order based on the single-architectural component experiment? \n\nc)\tOn line 199-200 it states that the cortical magnification is applied immediately before the ResNet50 layer 1. Does this ResNet still have the first convolutional layer that proceeds all of the residual blocks, such that the cortical magnification is acting on the output of the convolutional layer/pooling? This detail should be clarified. \n\nd)\tWas the decision to downsample the ImageNet images to 64x64 based on biology or computational constraints? Is it possible to train on more standard image sizes? This would possibly help the accuracy of the models. \n\ne)\tRelated to the above – is the baseline ResNet50 presented trained on these 64x64 images as well?\n\nf)\tWhat networks are being referred to on lines 327-330? Are these the networks with adversarial training? (If so, this claim maybe should be toned down, as the margins are not “large” and still far off from the noise ceiling).  \n\nMinor: \n* Lines 25-28: It would be helpful if specific “neuroscientific” models were listed here. I think the idea is that the models referred to in this section are hand-designed based on observed neural properties, rather than being optimized in some other manner? \n* Line 32: “Through typical task-driven training alone” – this is not quite true, as a (typically linear) readout must be trained to map the activations of the neural network onto the responses of neurons. \n* Lines 36: It would improve the paper if citations showing that CNNs are not achieving properties of the visual system were included here.   \n* Lines 68-73 are vague and uninformative to the context of the presented work. It would help to be more specific about failures of the models and previous work.  \n* Line 325: Include a reference to the supplementary section documenting the training details for the adversarially trained network.  \n", "limitations": "The authors discuss the limitations in the discussion. ", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "This paper provides a through discussion about many hypothesized computations in V1, and incorporates these computations into deep neural networks as modules with learnable components. The individual contributions of these components are systematically evaluated in terms of how well they capture properties of V1 and predict V1 responses to stimuli. Building this type of biologically inspired model with many V1 components is novel and the discussion of incorporating biological components into AI systems is currently of high interest for the NeurIPS audience (both on the CS and neuroscience communities).    ", "weaknesses": "* The idea of including biological components into neural networks is not novel, and the paper lacks full discussion of other attempts along these lines. Perhaps most relevant here is VOneNet (Dapello et al. 2020) which incorporates properties of V1 into a convolutional neural network (this paper is cited but not in the context of modeling V1). Although the exact architectural components added are different here (and designed for specific response properties), the paper would benefit from an explicit discussion about what sets this work apart from what was previously done.  \n* Re clarity: As the paper is currently written, I found difficult to follow what is previous work and what is built into the model. In some parts of the “Background” it is mentioned that certain things are adopted in the previous work, but other parts are not discussed as being incorporated until the Methods. It might help the reader if these sections were restructured so that it is clear how the previous work builds into the proposed architecture. \n* The paper claims to “introduce architectural components based on neuroscience foundations” however, from what I can tell, all of the included architecture components have been previously proposed. The novelty of this paper is including all of them within one model and analyzing them systematically.  \n* Due to the number of models and response properties that are tested, and the somewhat small differences in many cases, it is difficult to interpret which of the brain-score results are significant, although I do appreciate that the authors report mean and standard deviation across 3 trials of training and evaluation. Perhaps just changing the colors to make it clear which differences are or are not significant (correcting for multiple comparisons) would help? But generally, the changes in Brain-Score seems relatively small as all models are still far from the noise ceiling, making some of the claims of the paper seem too grandiose given the reported results. \n* The robustness to corrupted images experiment also seems like the differences from the baseline model may be within the noise after correcting for multiple comparisons, and the overall changes are very small. \n", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for their insights. Our responses to each raised concern are provided in the points below and we will add these details to the camera-ready paper.\n\n>Re: The paper would benefit from an explicit discussion about novelty\n\nWe appreciate this feedback and have run additional experiments to expand our results and discussions. We studied the features learned by each network by generating maximally activating images of artificial V1 layers via gradient ascent, analyzed learned parameters of trainable components, and elaborated on the original ablation studies. We summarize our findings in the points below.\n- Center-surround antagonism improves spatial frequency properties via features selective to a high variety of spatial frequencies. Most trainable DoG kernels learned low-variance center gaussians, suggesting strong preferences for high frequency patterns and textures (rebuttal PDF, Fig 2).\n- We theorized that local RFs would improve response selectivity of artificial neurons by removing weight sharing. Ablation studies demonstrated a drop in the response selectivity property score when local receptive fields were omitted. Surprisingly, this was not observed in isolated-component evaluation.\n- Ablation studies supported the role of tuned normalization in improving spatial frequency, response selectivity, receptive field size, surround modulation, and response magnitude tuning alignment. Inter-neuron competition resulting from tuned normalization led to a more diverse feature set (qualitatively depicted in Fig 2 and quantitatively supported by statistically lower perceptual similarities), likely contributing to these improvements.\n- Given the retinotopic organization of V1, we hypothesized that cortical magnification would give rise to better-aligned response selectivity and receptive field size tuning distributions and additionally improve explanation of neural response. Each of these scores dropped whenever cortical magnification was removed, supporting this hypothesis.\n\nRegarding explicitly identifying the novelty of this work:\n- Prior works have evaluated a subset of these components independently. Our systematic analysis revealed nontrivial and complementary interactions that improved model-V1 alignment beyond what would be suggested by individual components, yielding SOTA models of macaque V1.\n- The developed models are in-silico platforms for analyzing processing in V1. Such image-computable models can enable neuroscientists to study complex dynamics of large neural populations that aren’t readily observable through data-limited, time-consuming, in-vivo observations (DOI:10.1126/science.aav9436) or support experiments that cannot be run in humans. Their processing and learned parameterization suggest new hypotheses about processing in V1 and provide evidence and alternative views for existing theories.\n- Improving model-V1 alignment does not trivially improve classifier robustness. While small improvements to corruption robustness from tuned normalization layers were observed, alternate components stood as counterexamples to trends suggested in prior works.\n\n>Re: Interpretability of brain-scores across many models and small changes in many cases\n\nWe wish to clarify that integrating individual components had little impact on model-V1 alignment (with the exception of cortical magnification). It was when these components were integrated together that substantial improvements emerged (rebuttal PDF, Fig 3). To date, these are the most accurate models of macaque V1 and prior work has demonstrated that even models with neural alignment far from the noise ceiling have utility in revealing novel insights about processing in the brain (DOI:10.1126/science.aav9436).\n\n>Re: Small changes in robustness to corrupted images\n\nWe agree that the changes resulting from tuned normalization were minor (akin to the architecture-only effects observed in VOneNet (Dapello et al. 2020)). Notably, different components challenged the presumed link between model-V1 alignment and classifier robustness. Systematically investigating this divergence through analysis of the training dataset, training dynamics, and architecture would be an intriguing avenue for future exploration.\n\n>Re: Adversarially trained ResNet50 as a baseline\n\nWe appreciate this suggestion. These results have been included in Table 2 of the rebuttal PDF.\n\n>Re: Greedy backwards elimination\n\nIn this approach, we iteratively removed individual components from the architecture, computed which contributed the least to the V1 Overall score, and then removed this single component. This was done in a top-down approach, starting with our top-performing model, to deduce the critical components without having to evaluate every model permutation.\n\n>Re: Cortical magnification integration\n\nThis ResNet still has the first conv and batch norm layers.  The cortical magnification layer replaced the pooling layer before the first residual block, as it implicitly performs pooling among pixels of the same polar cell.\n\n>Re: ImageNet downsampling\n\nThis downsampling was done for all models due to computational constraints (not a requirement of any component). We agree that training without downsampling is likely to improve model accuracy. Reductions in model accuracy were also found to be mitigated by multi-fixation inference strategies that addressed classification challenges associated with cortical magnification.\n\n>Re: Toning down claim on lines 327-330\n\nThe networks in question refer to the top performing models with and without adversarial training. Top V1 alignment scores were previously separated by small margins, and these models were evaluated as the most accurate models of activity in V1 to date. These substantial improvements are depicted in Fig 3 of the rebuttal PDF.\n\n>Re: Paper clarity and minor suggestions\n\nWe appreciate these suggestions, agree with the reviewer’s points, and will address these points in the camera-ready paper."}, {"review_id": "mqypvDyYEN", "reviewer": "Reviewer_EW9X", "summary": "The authors incorporated four well-known architectural components of V1 into an earlier layer of the CNN, resulting in a reduction in task performance but an improved alignment with V1 neurons' behaviors. Their study demonstrated that cortical magnification led to the most significant enhancement in alignment, as observed in the overall property and predictability of V1 in the Brain-Score benchmark test. Tuned normalization also improved alignment in certain V1 properties, while the contribution of center-surround mechanisms appeared to be minimal or data-dependent. These improvements generally ranged between 1% and 2%.", "questions": "It would be helpful to discuss why and how certain architectural components would  produce greater alignment while others do not.  Is there any theoretical and conceptual framework that can help us to make sense of the results?", "limitations": "Limitations on performance drop has been discussed.  The work could have implications on neuroscience.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "The motivation and hypotheses of the study are reasonable, and the exploration is conducted in a systematic and logical manner. The finding that cortical magnification provides some improvement in alignment is interesting.", "weaknesses": "The introduction of brain architectural components was expected to enhance the alignment of the model with V1 data in the Brain-Score test, so the results are not particularly surprising. While the paper contains some systematic and well-done experiments, it does not provide an explanation as to why certain architectural components would have specific effects. As a result, the main contribution is simply showing  incorporating more information relevant to the data would improve performance in explaining the data, at the expense of the model's task performance. Although the work may hold value, its contribution might not reach the level typically expected in a NeurIPS paper.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for their insights. We have broken down the raised concerns and provide our responses below.\n\n>The introduction of brain architectural components was expected to enhance the alignment of the model with V1 data in the Brain-Score test, so the results are not particularly surprising\n\nWe appreciate this feedback but suggest the contrary, that the results are nontrivial and surprising. From one perspective, classical neuroscientific models of V1 (inherently based on architectural components of the brain) fail to predict V1 neural responses as well as task-driven ANNs (DOI:10.1101/2021.03.01.433495). Second, none of the top-scoring models on Brain-Score feature biological components and prior work has demonstrated strong correlations between ImageNet accuracy and model-brain alignment (DOI:10.1101/407007). Further, in isolation (main text, Table 1), most modules did not improve model-V1 alignment (center-surround antagonism and both divisive normalization components reduced the V1 Overall score, on average). Surprisingly, it was only when these components were combined that we observed drastically improved explanations of V1, suggesting their complimentary contribution.\n\n>it does not provide an explanation as to why certain architectural components would have specific effects\n\nWe thank the reviewer for this insight and have since run additional studies to explain these observations. Specifically, we analyzed the features learned by each network variant by visualizing images that maximally activated neurons in artificial V1 layers via gradient ascent and studied the learned parameters of trainable, biologically-inspired components. We summarize the conclusions of these experiments below and will further detail these insights in the camera-ready paper:\n- Center-surround antagonism improves spatial frequency properties by learning features that are selective to a highly varying spatial frequencies. Most trainable DoG kernels learned low-variance center gaussians, suggesting strong preferences for high frequency patterns and textures (Fig 2 of rebuttal PDF).\n- We theorized that local RFs would improve response selectivity properties of artificial neurons by removing weight sharing. Our ablation studies demonstrated a drop in the response selectivity property score when local receptive fields were omitted. Surprisingly, this was not observed in isolated-component evaluation.\n- Single and multi-component studies support the role of tuned normalization in improving spatial frequency, response selectivity, receptive field size, surround modulation, and response magnitude tuning alignment. Inter-neuron competition resulting from tuned normalization led to a more diverse feature set (qualitatively depicted in Fig 2 and quantitatively shown by statistically lower perceptual similarities), likely contributing to these property score improvements.\n- Given the retinotopic organization of V1, we hypothesized that cortical magnification would give rise to better-aligned response selectivity and receptive field size tuning distributions, meanwhile improving neural predictivity. In each trial where cortical magnification was removed, these respective scores dropped, supporting this hypothesis.\n\n>the main contribution is simply showing incorporating more information relevant to the data would improve performance in explaining the data, at the expense of the model's task performance\n\nWhile our results did focus on architecture-driven improvements to model-V1 alignment, it has further contributions that we briefly summarize below and will expand upon in the camera-ready paper:\n- As the reviewer noted, we systematically analyzed the contribution of biologically-inspired components to explaining V1 activity.\n- The developed models (the most accurate models of V1 to date) are in-silico platforms for analyzing processing in V1. Such image-computable models can enable neuroscientists to study complex dynamics of large neural populations that aren’t readily observable through data-limited, time-consuming, in-vivo observations (DOI:10.1126/science.aav9436) or support experiments that cannot be run in humans. Their processing and learned parameterization suggest new hypotheses about processing in V1 and provide evidence and alternative views for existing theories. As an example, learned features in networks with tuned normalization were commonly more diverse than baseline those of ResNets. The improvements in V1 property scores that we observed from networks with this component can be treated as additional evidence that competition among neurons driven by tuned normalization gives rise to diverse tuning properties.\n- Improving model-V1 alignment does not trivially improve image classification robustness. While small improvements to corruption robustness from tuned normalization layers were observed, alternative components stood as counterexamples to prior works that have suggested strong correlations between model-V1 alignment and classifier robustness to corrupted images.\n\nRegarding diminished classification accuracy, these reductions primarily resulted from the introduction of cortical magnification, which assumed that the model’s gaze was focused on the center of the image. Images for which the object of interest is not located at the image center became more challenging to classify, reducing accuracy (rebuttal PDF, Fig 1). This challenge can be mitigated with a mechanism that dynamically determines the fixation center of this polar transform (e.g., saliency or attention maps) or performs inference using multiple fixations. We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach with a naive strategy that performs inference by averaging predictions from five static crops of each image, improving the accuracy of the network with all components from 55.1% to 59.9% (without affecting V1 scores). A more sophisticated, dynamic strategy (DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1709.01889) could further reduce this accuracy gap.\n"}, {"review_id": "jf1mOccpiF", "reviewer": "Reviewer_yZMG", "summary": "The paper considers deep networks as a model of the visual stream, specifically V1. The authors systematically study the impact of various biological additions to deep networks on alignment of deep nets' representations with V1 recordings.", "questions": "Is it possible to provide a baseline for the \"best possible\" V1 score by comparing Brain-Score neural data to itself (e.g. with K-fold cross-validation)? I don't think it was done in the original Brain-Score papers, so it's definitely not a hard requirement here. But it would be a great addition.\n\n### Minor issues\n\n> [Line 20] Advances in neuroscience have long been proposed as essential to realizing the next generation of artifical intelligence (AI). \n\nIs that true? I'm not quite sure… also misspelled artificial \n\n> [22] (e.g, convolutional neural networks and mechanisms of attention) owe their origins to biological intelligence\n\nConv nets need a citation; attention too, and I’m not sure if attention mechanism in transformers were even inspired by biology on the implementation level (see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2020.00029/full which says \"While the spirit of\nattention in machine learning is certainly inspired by psychology,\nits implementations do not always track with what is known\nabout biological attention, as will be noted below.\")\n\nOverall: \\cite doesn’t generate links to bibliography? \n\n> [45] In specific\n\nI don’t think this phrase is commonly used. “Specifically” or “in particular” would read better.\n\n> [151] these DoG convolutions were only applied to a fraction of the input feature map\n\nWhy?\n\nFig. 1D can benefit from a more detailed explanation. I want to say the original image is on the right but then the transformation doesn’t preserve retinotopy.\n\n> [209] alternate\n\nAlternative\n\nColor-coding Tab. 3 would be great!\n\nThe code is in the supplementary, so the authors should indicate it in the main text (and perhaps add it to github afterwards)\n\n### Rebuttal acknowledgement\nI have read the rebuttal and responded to the authors. I think it addressed all (minor) concerns that I had, and I still think 7 (accept) is an appropriate score.", "limitations": "The limitations and impacts are addressed.", "rating": 7, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "The paper considers several features of the early visual stream that can be added to deep networks, and tests the influence of those features on image classification performance and V1 alignment. While some individual features have been considered before, the approach and especially ablation studies here are novel and, in my opinion, interesting to the community.\n\nThe final result is interesting too: combining all 4 architectural features alone resulted in the best V1 alignment (0.605 vs. 0.594 of the top1 V1 model www.brain-score.org/model/vision/623). Adding adversarial features improved it to 0.629, which seems very significant -- the median V1 score at www.brain-score.org/ is less than 0.5.", "weaknesses": "The results in Tab. 3 suggest that V1-like features significantly hurt ImageNet performance -- the best V1 model is 16% less accurate than the best ImageNet model. This is mostly due to adversarial training. I think the authors should discuss why it has such an effect. \n\nTwo important ablation studies are missing:\n1. Adversarial training only, since it has a big effect on both V1 alignment and ImageNet performance.\n2. Untrained networks with all/some biological features. All discussed features change the distribution of neural responses even in untrained networks, so it might be that V1 improvements come from that distribution change alone, not from training with those features. \n\nI also suggest the authors include, at least in the appendix, Brain-Scores for other areas (V2, V4, IT) and behavioural data. This is the standard way to evaluate models on Brain-Score, so having all results would make comparisons to other models easier.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for their insightful feedback and questions. Our responses to the concerns raised are provided point-by-point below.\n\n>The results in Tab. 3 suggest that V1-like features significantly hurt ImageNet performance -- the best V1 model is 16% less accurate than the best ImageNet model. This is mostly due to adversarial training. I think the authors should discuss why it has such an effect.\n\nWhile the focus of our work was to highlight the contribution of a biologically-inspired architecture towards explaining V1 activity in response to arbitrary image stimuli, we also realize that preserving image classification accuracy would be valuable to practitioners who wish to use such models in experiments for which core object recognition inference is important. There are two primary reasons for the reduced accuracies:\n1. In comparison to the 64x64 ResNet50 baseline, the observed reduction in image classification accuracy of models that were not adversarially trained primarily resulted from the introduction of cortical magnification, which assumed that the model’s gaze was focused on the center of the image; consequently, visual stimuli at greater distance from the image center are under-sampled during the polar transformation (Fig. 1 of rebuttal PDF). Images in which the object of interest is not located at the image center (common in ImageNet) became more challenging to classify, reducing model accuracy. This challenge can be mitigated with a mechanism that dynamically determines the fixation center of this polar transform (e.g., saliency or attention maps) or performs inference using multiple fixations. We demonstrate the efficacy of this strategy with a naive proof of concept in which classification is performed by averaging predictions from the five static crops of each image. This simple strategy improved the validation accuracy of the network with all components from 55.1% to 59.9% (without affecting V1 scores). A more sophisticated, dynamic strategy could further reduce this accuracy drop.\n2. The accuracy of the model that achieved the highest model-V1 alignment (the adversarially trained, biologically constrained model) was further reduced by adversarial training.  We evaluated the classification accuracy of an adversarially trained ResNet50 at 55.5% (rebuttal PDF, Table 2).\n\nThese revisions will be detailed and clarified in the camera-ready paper.\n\n>Two important ablation studies are missing: 1) Adversarial training only and 2) Untrained networks with all/some biological features\n\nWe thank the reviewer for these suggestions and agree that they are important. We have run these evaluations and included the results in Tables 1 and 2 of the rebuttal PDF. For ease of reference, the V1 Overall Brain-Score for the adversarially trained ResNet50 was 0.581 and no statistically significant correlation was observed between untrained and trained model V1 Overall scores. These evaluations will be added to the paper.\n\n>I also suggest the authors include, at least in the appendix, Brain-Scores for other areas (V2, V4, IT) and behavioral data. This is the standard way to evaluate models on Brain-Score, so having all results would make comparisons to other models easier.\n\nWe agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. These scores will be added to our supplementary material. For reference, V2, V4, and IT scores for the top performing model (all-components with adversarial training) are .343 (rank 26), .459 (rank 118), and .343 (rank 168), respectively.\n\n> Question: Is it possible to provide a baseline for the \"best possible\" V1 score by comparing Brain-Score neural data to itself (e.g. with K-fold cross-validation)? I don't think it was done in the original Brain-Score papers, so it's definitely not a hard requirement here. But it would be a great addition.\n\nV1 Predictivity scores as computed as correlations between measured and predicted neural activity, normalized by internal consistency of the measured neural data.  V1 Property scores are similarly ceiled according to maximum distribution similarities observed among the measured neural data.\\\nRegarding these internal consistency scores and maximum distribution similarities, we unfortunately could not calculate this as we do not have access to the private neural evaluation data. This is an interesting question, however, and the answer to it could have interesting implications regarding what we could expect from an “optimal” model.\n\n> Minor: [151] these DoG convolutions were only applied to a fraction of the input feature map. Why?\n\nWe skip the DoG convolution for some channels to account for the fact that not all V1 neurons have a symmetric surround suppression region (DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-23-10536.1999, 10.1038/nn1310).\n\n>Minor: Fig. 1D can benefit from a more detailed explanation. I want to say the original image is on the right but then the transformation doesn’t preserve retinotopy.\n\nWe apologize for this confusion. The original image is on the left and the transformed image is on the right. Fig. 1 of the rebuttal PDF shows two example images before and after the transformation. The caption of Figure 1D has been updated and these example figures will be added to the supplementary material for clarity.\n\n>Minor: The code is in the supplementary, so the authors should indicate it in the main text (and perhaps add it to github afterwards)\n\nWe plan to make our code publicly available on github following anonymous review and will add the corresponding link in the main text.\n\n>Minor: Remaining minor issues regarding grammar, spelling, formatting, citation issues, and unclear claims about the importance of neuroscience in AI and biologically inspired mechanisms in artificial neural networks.\n\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting these oversights. We will resolve these issues and clarify these claims in the camera-ready paper.\n"}, {"review_id": "EmWxL5Hc6R", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Y5Aa", "summary": "In this study the authors propose the incorporation of mechanistic biologically inspired filtering and normalization components in deep convolutional networks (DCNs) with the goal of increased alignment of model responses to V1 neural responses and tuning properties. The authors add center-surround receptive fields, local receptive fields, tuned divisive inhibition and cortical magnification to DCNs that are trained with downscaled ImageNet-64x64. The authors perform an extensive ablation of the components above to show their relative importance for alignment with V1 neural responses. The proposed best-performing model produces quite significant improvements on Brainscore's V1 model alignment. The authors also touch upon whether the above models with high V1 alignment are more robust to perceptual distortions.", "questions": "Please see my review in the Weaknesses section for questions and suggestions.", "limitations": "Yes, the authors have adequately addressed limitations in their work.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "+ The authors propose a unique combination of biologically inspired components that have been shown to exist in primate early visual mechanisms. These components are also explained in good depth and clarity for readers who may not be familiar with the specific computations. To the best of my knowledge, even though each of these components by themselves are not novel, the unique combination explored here appears to be novel and not explored before from the perspective of bettering alignment to V1 properties.\n+ The proposed model is significantly outperforming the previous SOTA on explaining neural activity and tuning properties from the Brain-score dataset. The authors have run multiple simulations with different random seeds and add more credibility to their observed findings.", "weaknesses": "- As the authors have pointed out, there is a significant drop in accuracy with respect to image classification accuracy. I believe the authors must try to address, from their perspective, why this drop occurs. It is common in this area that models that are trained to better represent biological neural activity tend to suffer from poor classification accuracy. Addressing this issue will be quite a strong contribution.\n- The scope of this work is quite limited; I am unsure if the produced improvement on alignment to V1 neural responses and tuning properties is sufficient as the only major contribution in this work. \n- It may help if the authors could please add some intuition about why each of the explored components help in improving neural predictivity; it is also important to find out whether these components are useful to improve model-brain alignment regardless of the underlying architecture.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for their insights, all of which have helped us improve this work. We ran additional experiments to answer questions about the drop in classification accuracy and reveal insights about the contribution of each component to explaining neural activity. In the latter experiment, we studied the features learned by each model by generating images that maximally activated neurons in artificial V1 layers via gradient ascent, and analyzed the learned parameters of the trainable, biologically-inspired components. We address the concerns raised by the reviewer and elaborate on the results of these experiments below.\n\n> \"...there is a significant drop in accuracy with respect to image classification accuracy... Addressing this issue will be quite a strong contribution.\"\n\nAlthough not a focal point of this work, we agree that preserving image classification accuracy would be valuable to the targeted research audience. The reduction in accuracy primarily resulted from the introduction of cortical magnification, which assumed that the model’s gaze was focused on the center of the image. As a result, visual stimuli at greater distance from the image center are under-sampled during the polar transformation (Fig. 1 of rebuttal PDF). Images in which the object of interest is not located at the image center became more challenging to classify, reducing model accuracy. This challenge could be mitigated with a mechanism that dynamically determines the fixation center of this polar transform (e.g., saliency or attention maps) or performs inference using multiple fixations. We demonstrate the efficacy of this strategy with a naive proof of concept in which classification is performed by averaging predictions from the five static crops of each image. This simple strategy improved the validation accuracy of the network with all components from 55.1% to 59.9% (without affecting V1 scores). A more sophisticated, dynamic strategy (DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1709.01889) could further reduce this accuracy drop. We have added these details to our manuscript.\n\n> \"I am unsure if the produced improvement on alignment to V1 neural responses and tuning properties is sufficient as the only major contribution in this work.\"\n\nWhile our results did focus on architecture-driven improvements to model-V1 alignment, this work has further contributions that we briefly summarize below and will detail in a camera-ready version:\n- As the reviewer noted, we systematically analyzed the contribution of biologically-inspired components to explaining V1 activity. This analysis revealed complementary interactions of these components that improved model-V1 alignment beyond what would be suggested by any individual component.\n- The developed models (the most accurate models of V1 to date) are in-silico platforms for analyzing processing in V1. Such image-computable models can enable neuroscientists to study complex dynamics of large neural populations that aren’t readily observable through data-limited, time-consuming, in-vivo observations (DOI:10.1126/science.aav9436) or run surrogate experiments that cannot be done with humans. Their processing and learned parameterization suggest new hypotheses about processing in V1 and provide evidence and alternative views for existing theories. As an example, learned features in networks with tuned normalization were commonly more diverse than baseline those of ResNets (detailed further in response #3). The improvements in V1 property scores that we observed from networks with this component can be treated as additional evidence that competition among neurons driven by tuned normalization gives rise to diverse tuning properties.\n- Improving model-V1 alignment does not trivially improve image classification robustness. While small improvements to corruption robustness from tuned normalization layers were observed, alternative components stood as counterexamples to prior works that have suggested strong correlations between model-V1 alignment and classifier robustness to corrupted images.\n\n> Re: intuition about the contribution of each explored component.\n\nData-driven approaches have elucidated our strongest intuitions about the contributions of these components and have also produced new neuroscientific insights about processing in V1. We briefly summarize findings from these analyses in the points below, all of which will be expanded upon in the camera-ready paper.\n- Center-surround antagonism improves spatial frequency properties by learning features that are selective to a high variance of spatial frequencies. Most trainable DoG kernels learned low-variance center gaussians, suggesting strong preferences for high frequency patterns and textures (Fig. 2 of rebuttal PDF).\n- We theorized that local RFs would improve response selectivity properties of artificial neurons by removing weight sharing. Our ablation studies demonstrated a drop in the response selectivity property score when local receptive fields were omitted. Surprisingly, this was not observed in isolated-component evaluation.\n- Ablation studies support the role of tuned normalization in improving spatial frequency, response selectivity, receptive field size, surround modulation, and response magnitude tuning alignment. Inter-neuron competition resulting from tuned normalization led to a more diverse feature set (qualitatively depicted in Fig. 2 and quantitatively shown by statistically lower perceptual similarities), likely contributing to these property score improvements.\n- Given the retinotopic organization of V1, we hypothesized that cortical magnification would give rise to better-aligned response selectivity and receptive field size tuning distributions, meanwhile improving neural predictivity. In each trial where cortical magnification was removed, these respective scores dropped, supporting this hypothesis.\n\nThe generalization of these components to different architectures has been planned for future work."}]

Author rebuttal:
We thank the reviewers for their insightful and productive feedback. We were grateful to read that the reviewers agreed that the biologically-constrained models proposed in this work significantly outperform previous SOTA on explaining neural activity observed in macaque V1 (Y5Aa, yZMG), were systematically evaluated (EW9X, bbGj, yZMG), and that the work is of of high interest to the NeurIPS audience (bbGj, Y5Aa).

The reviewers raised constructive questions regarding intuition behind the contribution of each analyzed component towards explaining neural activity in V1 (Y5Aa, bbGj, EW9X), solutions to mitigate reductions in image classification performance upon introducing these biologically-motivated components (Y5Aa, yZMG, EW9X), and further implications of the observed results (Y5Aa, bbGj, EW9X).

We address the questions and concerns raised by each reviewer point-by-point in the respective threads below. In summary, data-driven insights emergent from studying learned features and parameters of the trained models are suggestive of each component's contribution to explaining neural activity in V1. Static center-of-gaze assumptions of the cortical magnification layer made the model more susceptible to misclassifying images for which the object of interest was outside of the image center, a challenge that could be mitigated with dynamic or recurrent fixation strategies. Finally, the learned parameters and processing strategies of these state-of-the-art models of V1 could unveil hypotheses and provide evidence for visual processing strategies in the primary visual cortex.


Meta-review: This paper explores the addition of biologically plausible architectural components to CNNs. 
Ablation analyses examine the impact of the different components.    The model achieves top 
scores on the Brain-Score V1 benchmark.
Decision: Accept (poster)