Vision Models Predict Urban Scene Appraisal with Limited Neural Alignment
Authors: Kaizhen Tan, Yuantao Deng
Organizations: New York University
Abstract
Pretrained vision embeddings are increasingly used as general-purpose representations for modelling how people appraise urban scenes, and are validated almost entirely by how well they predict human ratings. High predictive accuracy does not establish that these embeddings organise scenes as human perception does. We test the two properties separately against brain data. Using openly released EEG from 63 adults who viewed and rated 56 Berlin street scenes, we estimate the representational geometry of the scenes over time, the proportion of that geometry that is explainable at all, and its correspondence with seventeen feature spaces spanning language-supervised, self-supervised, category-supervised and dense-prediction training, two orders of magnitude of scale, and interpretable controls. Correspondence is low throughout: the best representation, DINOv2 ViT-B, reaches 29.6% of the lower bound of the noise ceiling, the panel spans 11.0% to 29.6%, and a Gabor energy descriptor is indistinguishable from the best model while outperforming every language-supervised model tested. Within a model, deeper layers still match later neural responses, so the hierarchical correspondence found for object recognition survives even at this low overall level. The same embeddings predict held-out appraisal ratings well, up to r = 0.87, and the two measures do not track each other across models; reweighting features towards the neural geometry lowers appraisal prediction for every model tested, against a control of matched dimensionality. Predicting how a street is appraised is therefore weak evidence that a model represents the street as the brain does. The benchmark uses only public data and requires no training, so evaluating a new representation needs only its embeddings for 55 images.
Artificial vision models are often evaluated against the human visual cortex by measuring how accurately their internal representations predict brain responses. However, prediction accuracy alone does not indicate which dimensions of the target brain's response space are recovered. Here, we introduce a unified framework for evaluating both model-brain and brain-brain alignment by identifying the response dimensions recovered by prediction. Using repeated fMRI measurements, we first identify target-brain response dimensions that can be reproducibly predicted across independent trial splits. We then predict target-brain responses from either another subject's brain responses or a vision model's internal representations, and quantify how strongly each of these reproducible response dimensions is recovered. Applying this framework to a subset of the Natural Scenes Dataset, in which eight subjects viewed the same natural images during fMRI, we find that the early-to-intermediate visual-cortex responses contain a low-dimensional set of reproducible dimensions. Brain-to-brain comparisons identify which of these dimensions are consistently recoverable from other subjects' brains, providing a diagnostic human reference rather than only a scalar benchmark. In some cases, pretrained and randomly initialized models achieve similar prediction accuracy while showing distinct recovery profiles across these response dimensions. These results show that prediction accuracy alone can mask model-brain mismatches. By making explicit which reproducible brain response dimensions are recovered by prediction, our framework provides a more diagnostic evaluation of alignment between artificial vision models and the human visual cortex.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to generate structured descriptions of street-level imagery for tasks such as streetscape auditing, mapping, and public consultation. These uses combine observable attributes with appraisal categories, and the human targets are often distributions of judgments with disagreement and explicit non-response. This paper argues that benchmarking VLMs for urban perception should treat disagreement and abstention as measurement outcomes, report inter-annotator reliability alongside model alignment, and treat the label space and scoring policy as negotiable artifacts when outputs are intended to inform urban governance. We ground the argument in a benchmark of 100 Montreal street scenes annotated along 30 dimensions by 12 participants from seven community organizations, and in a deterministic zero-shot evaluation of seven VLMs. Across dimensions, model agreement with human consensus co-varies with dimension-level human reliability, and for the appraisal dimension Overall Impression models and annotators exhibit distributional mismatch including different rates of Not applicable. We close with actions for benchmark creators, model developers, and institutions to make uncertainty and benchmark assumptions visible in evaluation reports.
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and vision transformers are both used to model the human visual system, but whether the two architectures diverge at a specific point in network depth is unclear. We compared six CNNs and two vision transformers by computing the Pearson correlation (r) between each model's predicted and measured EEG response at every layer or block, in ten participants viewing 200 natural images. For the transformer models, we also tested four token representations, from the classification (CLS) token alone to CLS combined with all patch tokens. CNNs showed strongest correspondence at the earliest layers, weakening at deeper layers, particularly later in the post-stimulus response. Transformers instead sustained strong correspondence at their deepest blocks, though not at their earliest ones. This advantage depended on token representation: pooled representations gave weaker peak correlations (r approx 0.48-0.51) than representations retaining all patch tokens (r=0.640 for CLIP-ViT-B/32, r=0.656 for DINOv2-ViT-B/14). Controlled comparisons showed architecture, not training objective, drove this effect: MoCo-v1 and ResNet-50 (matched architecture) performed nearly identically (r=0.673, 0.670), whereas CLIP-RN50 and CLIP-ViT-B/32 (matched objective) diverged until patch tokens were preserved. We propose that CNN training's classification bottleneck compresses brain-relevant information at depth, unlike transformers' self-attention and non-classification objectives. A spatial topography analysis showed a common occipital-dominant pattern across all models, indicating these differences reflect signal strength and persistence rather than distinct brain regions. Patch-preserving transformer representations sustain brain-predictive correspondence where CNNs collapse.