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.
In computational vision science, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have emerged as a popular model of biological vision because of the alignment they can exhibit with neural and behavioral data in humans and animals. However, it remains unclear to what extent this alignment persists for visual tasks that extend beyond the canonical object recognition paradigm based on well defined semantic content. In this study, we diverge from the common object-centric view by focusing on another aspect of vision: texture perception. We consider textures of different complexity generated with three different algorithms from the same source images. Using a rank-based statistic, we quantify the information encoded in the internal representations of a CNN and three Vision Transformers (ViTs), and we compare the similarity of these representations to those inferred from human psychophysics data. We find that the representation of textures is aligned in different ViTs, but not between the ViTs and the CNN; that ViTs form similar representations for textures of different complexity; that human performance in recognizing textures can be better predicted from ViTs representations rather than CNN representations. Taken together, these results suggest that ViTs may capture more faithfully than CNNs how texture patterns are visually processed by humans, and that the representations of texture stimuli in computational models may be driven by the network architecture.
Ludovica de Paolis, Marco Baroni, Alessandro Laio +1
Visual perception depends on top-down goals and bottom-up sensory mechanisms. Vision-language models implement both, allowing us to treat each component as a separable hypothesis about what drives where we look. We compared spatial attention maps from six vision-language models against human fixation heatmaps recorded on 200 images during two tasks (general description and social captioning). The six models spanned a 2×2 factorial of CNN vs.\ ViT encoders crossed with LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders, plus Molmo 7B-D and Qwen3.5 9B. We found that both decoder and encoder architecture shaped alignment, but decoder choice dominated. LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders increased alignment by 40--50 percentage points (80--87% vs.\ 40--59% of the human noise ceiling). In contrast, CNN vs.\ ViT encoders contributed a secondary 5--20 point advantage depending on decoder family, with CNN-LSTM the most aligned model overall (85--87%). Despite their alignment advantage, LSTM-decoder attention maps were spatially diffuse and minimally task-differentiated; ViT-Transformer, the weakest in alignment, showed the sharpest spatial concentration and strongest task differentiation. A hemispatial-neglect simulation confirmed that ablating attention impacted LSTM decoders more than Transformer decoders. In an exploratory extension using TRIBE-simulated synthetic neural responses, fixation alignment and neural relevance dissociate: CNN-Transformer attention maps better predicted synthetic brain activity despite lower fixation alignment, with attention maps best predicting early visual cortex. Together, top-down and bottom-up components trade off what they predict in behavioral and synthetic neural data.
Isaac R. Christian, Udith Haputhanthrige, Hanna Hornfeld +4
Whether artificial neural networks organize information comparably to the human brain remains unclear. Prior brain--AI alignment studies are constrained by specific inputs and tasks, limiting cross-modal comparison. Here we introduce a brain--model topological alignment space, mapping Transformer attention topology onto human intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) to enable task-free, modality-agnostic comparison. Analyzing 151 Transformer-based models with 62,480 attention head graphs, we observe a continuous arc-shaped distribution reflecting varying alignment. Models optimized for global semantics aligned with higher-order ICNs, while local-detail models aligned with sensory ICNs. Non-intuitive findings include reduced alignment in DINOv2 compared to its predecessors and a counterintuitive scaling inversion in distilled DeiT models, while fine-tuning and instruction tuning had limited effect. Alignment scores showed no significant correlation with ImageNet accuracy (r = 0.266, p = 0.156). This work offers a quantitative framework for comparing the organizational principles of artificial and biological systems.