Human Visual Perception

Judging image quality is not only ecologically relevant to everyday human tasks, but also underpins many machine vision tasks such as image generation. This paper proposes a framework to understand the inherent perceptual space underlying image quality judgment in humans. We propose a multi-dimensional observer model that represents images as distributions in a latent perceptual space and that models human judgment as comparing noisy samples. Being constrained by neural representations in the primate ventral stream and fit to large-scale behavioral data, the model enables analysis of perceptual structure while matching the predictive power of existing metrics. Using this model, we find that the perceptual spaces needed to account for image quality judgment in humans are extremely low-dimensional compared to the image space even when considering its sparsity. The exact structure of the space (e.g., dimensionalities, information encoded) varies between low-level and high-level quality judgments, suggesting that, despite a shared retinal encoding in the beginning, humans selectively construct task-dependent perceptual spaces in visual decision making.

Human vision organizes what it sees into wholes: same-colored points group into series, similar marks cohere into categories, and shapes complete into recognizable objects. These are the Gestalt operations that visualization design builds on. Whether vision models organize visual content this way has not been systematically tested. We introduce a behavioral battery that scores models against human data from prior perception studies on four grouping tasks: mark-color odd-one-out, color-series counting, silhouette recognition, and object odd-one-out. We apply it to 45 models across five training families: supervised, self-supervised, and contrastive vision-language encoders, open-weight VLMs, and closed foundation models. The battery reveals that agreement with human responses captures aspects of perceptual organization that conventional performance metrics fail to distinguish, with several closed models exhibiting substantially lower alignment than their benchmark accuracy would suggest. Scoring against published perception data therefore gives visualization research a reusable yardstick, requiring no new user study, for auditing whether the models now entering visualization pipelines organize what they see the way their human audience does.

Human visual similarity judgments are context-dependent. For example, two images may be similar in shape but distinct in color. Existing perceptual similarity metrics, however, collapse these nuances into a single scalar value, offering no mechanism to condition on specific aspects. To bridge this gap, we introduce a large-scale dataset of human similarity judgments over image triplets, where each triplet is annotated across multiple, free-form semantic aspects of similarity. Benchmarking a broad range of frontier vision-language models (VLMs) reveals a considerable performance gap compared to human annotators' consensus. Leveraging our data, we fine-tune a VLM to produce our Text-Prompted Image Perceptual Similarity (TPIPS) metric, capturing multiple senses of visual similarity depending on the specified text prompt. We demonstrate that TPIPS aligns more closely with human perception and generalizes reliably beyond the training distribution. Finally, we show that TPIPS unlocks new capabilities in text-guided retrieval, compositional search, and the fine-grained evaluation of generative models. Our code, data, and trained models are at https://peterwang512.github.io/TPIPS

Deep neural networks trained on natural images are shown to produce outputs consistent with human observers for brightness illusions. While this phenomenon has been documented across architectures, all evidence, to date, is measured at the output level: restored pixels, decoded trajectories, or classification decisions. Whether these models actually represent illusions internally, and if so where and how, remains unknown. We show that denoising models develop illusion-sensitive representations at specific internal layers, across varied architectures. Specifically, we identify the layers and channels that discriminate illusory from physically matched control regions. We show that the denoising objective is a more important driver of the effect than the architecture. On domain-appropriate stimuli, these activations track a validated psychophysical model of human brightness perception (FLODOG; Spearman $ρ\geq 0.70$) and scale monotonically with parametric illusion strength. Leveraging these findings, we provide causal evidence via channel ablation showing that illusion-sensitive channels specifically and substantially affect the internal signal. Yet injecting these representations into the generation pipeline produces no measurable pixel shift across all tested architectures; we term such representations perceptual phantoms: active in internal processing yet invisible to any output-based evaluation. While related internal-output dissociations have been characterized in language models, this is the first such characterization for perceptual representations in denoising vision models.

Understanding and characterizing human color perception is a longstanding research goal. One of the most traditional approaches is looking for the human color discrimination thresholds, the minimum chromatic differences perceptible to human observers. In recent years, deep neural networks have become the standard networks for computer vision tasks. In particular, deep vision encoders, foundation models trained on large-scale visual data, map images into latent feature representations. Despite the widespread use of deep vision encoders, few studies have investigated whether their internal representations exhibit human-like discrimination thresholds. In this work, we present a large-scale exploratory study probing the chromatic sensitivity of more than 50 pretrained vision encoders, including convolutional networks and vision transformers, against human discrimination thresholds. Using controlled chromatic stimuli at multiple chroma levels, we compare model-derived chromatic discrimination thresholds with human discrimination ellipses through a region-overlap metric (mIoU). Our analysis reveals generally weak alignment between model representations and human perceptual thresholds across all model families, with the best mIoU < 0.25. Moreover, we find that self-supervised encoders consistently outperform supervised ones, while language-supervised models show the most polarized behavior, occupying both the top and bottom of the ranking. These findings suggest that human-like chromatic sensitivity does not emerge naturally from current large-scale visual training objectives for any of the analyzed architectures.

Do vision models see colors the way humans do? Existing evaluations of color representations usually compare them with geometric spaces such as CIELAB or with discrete color labels. These references capture perceptual distance or category membership, but not the graded way in which people organize colors. We evaluate color grounding against a fuzzy perceptual model with 86 graded categories fitted to human survey data. The framework can be applied to any image encoder and measures three complementary properties: category boundaries, category compactness, and graded alignment beyond what color geometry alone can explain. Across eleven Vision Transformer encoders, the category-level results are broadly similar, whereas graded alignment differs substantially. Masked Autoencoders achieve the strongest beyond-geometry alignment, with confidence intervals that do not overlap those of the other encoders. A layer-wise analysis further shows that masked reconstruction preserves this structure toward the output. On natural images, MAE represents surface color globally, while language-supervised models encode color more strongly in relation to the foreground object. These results show that human-like color grounding has several distinct aspects that should not be reduced to a single score.

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.

The structure of human visual representations underpins our capacity for adaptive behaviour. While pretrained neural networks model human visual representations with unprecedented success, a large discrepancy remains. We propose one reason: these networks optimise a single fixed objective, whereas human representations must support open-ended tasks. We hypothesise this flexibility arises from meta-learning (learning to learn), a pressure shaping representations to acquire new tasks from few observations. To test this, we train a sequence model, without any supervision from human data, across thousands of semantically rich tasks mapping images to high-level concepts. Compared to their pretrained base encoders, meta-learned representations better predict human similarity judgements, semantic rule learning, and high-level visual cortex. Behavioural gains depend on disentangled, high-level task distributions, while brain alignment is driven primarily by the learning-to-learn pressure. Our results suggest the flexibility of human visual representations reflects the functional demand to learn new semantic relationships on the fly.

Human perception of surface slant from texture exhibits systematic, graded biases that emerge reliably in psychophysical experiments. Prior work showed that unsupervised CNNs reproduce several human-like biases, while supervised CNNs do not. Do Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit similar competences? Across multiple VLM families and model scales, zero-shot and in-context prompting both produce distinctive failures: slant is predicted at only a small set of anchors (e.g., 0\degree, $\pm$25\degree, $\pm$45\degree) with little dependence on stimulus field of view, optical slant, or surface curvature. Supervised fine-tuning partially remediates the failure, but residual anchoring persists. While success in high-level vision-language benchmarks might not require sensitivity to low-level geometric cues, we interpret anchoring as a failure at the representation-to-output language interface: not necessarily an absence of geometric encoding, but a failure to express it in a graded form.

Large image datasets have accelerated progress in cognitive neuroscience and computer vision. However, most datasets are low-resolution, internet-sourced JPEGs with unknown capture conditions and limited spatial context. Places in the Wild is a dataset of 67,574 high-resolution photographs collected in situ across 810 physical locations spanning 260 basic-level scene categories, including indoor, urban, and natural environments. At each location, a 45-megapixel Canon EOS R5 mounted on a panoramic tripod captured 72 images at 5-degree horizontal intervals plus 12 images at varying elevations, yielding dense 360-degree viewpoint sampling. All images were recorded simultaneously as 14-bit RAW (CR3) files and compressed JPEGs, preserving sensor-level detail for analyses of luminance, contrast, color, and other image statistics. The dataset is accompanied by complete EXIF metadata and a suite of image-quality metrics. Places in the Wild supports research on viewpoint-dependent recognition in humans and models, training and evaluation of scene-understanding systems under realistic conditions, characterization of natural scene statistics, and experiments requiring near-full-field visual displays.

Biological visual systems learn from limited experience, unlike deep learning models that rely on millions of training images. What learning principles make this possible? We tested whether efficient coding, the idea that neural representations capture the statistical structure of natural inputs, can build a hierarchy of human-aligned visual features from limited data. We developed an unsupervised learning procedure in which each layer of a deep network compresses its inputs onto the dominant modes of variation in natural images, using only local statistics and no labels, tasks, or backpropagation. This unsupervised procedure yields features that progress from edges and colors to textures and shapes. The features of this deep efficient coding model are readily recognized by human observers and are predictive of image-evoked fMRI responses in human visual cortex. Furthermore, a hybrid learning procedure that combines efficient coding with supervised fine-tuning yields better brain alignment in low-data settings and more rapid category learning. These findings suggest that efficient coding may shape representations across the entire visual hierarchy and help explain the data efficiency of biological vision.

When humans view scenes without a specific task (free-viewing), they initially direct their eye movements toward the scene center and then fixate on people, text, objects being gazed at or grasped, and semantically meaningful regions. What these signature fixation patterns reflect and whether they optimize an underlying perceptual task remain unknown. We show that a computational agent with simulated foveation, trained to optimize scene comprehension, exhibits emergent human fixation signature patterns. In contrast, versions of the agent trained to search or classify scenes, or equipped with peripheral vision that was better or worse than human vision, predicted human fixation patterns less accurately. Thus, human free-viewing fixation patterns may emerge as a functional byproduct of optimizing scene comprehension under the biological constraints of foveated vision.

The perceptual representations supporting our ability to recognize faces remain a computational mystery. Deep neural networks offer mechanistic hypotheses for human face perception, but theoretically distinct models often make indistinguishable representational predictions for randomly sampled faces. To expose diagnostic differences among these hypotheses, we compared six neural network models sharing an architecture but trained on distinct tasks, using face pairs optimized to elicit contrasting model predictions ("controversial" pairs) alongside randomly sampled pairs. We tested model predictions against face-dissimilarity judgments from 864 human participants across stimulus sets differing in realism and pose variation. Models prioritizing high-level, invariant structures (trained via inverse rendering, face identification, or object classification) most robustly matched human judgments. Furthermore, models trained on natural images typically outperformed synthetic-trained counterparts. Together, these findings suggest that human face perception is shaped by mechanisms that infer latent causes of facial appearance, discount nuisance variation, and are tuned by natural image statistics.

Artificial neural networks trained on visual tasks develop internal representations resembling those of the primate visual system, a discovery that has guided a decade of computational neuroscience. Research on building brain-aligned models has progressively embraced finer-grained learning ob- jectives, from object classification to contrastive self-supervised objectives that maximize distinc- tions among individual images. Yet the effect of learning-signal granularity on brain alignment remains largely unexamined. Here we systematically investigate how the granularity of a learning signal shapes representational alignment with human vision. We parametrically vary the number of training classes using a data-driven approach that partitions a set of training images into differ- ent numbers of categories via PCA-based splits of pretrained embeddings. We train hundreds of neural networks across convolutional and transformer architectures on these coarse classification tasks and compare their representations with human fMRI responses, macaque electrophysiology recordings, and human behavior. We find that networks trained to distinguish as few as eight broad categories learn representations that match or exceed the neural alignment of models distinguishing 1,000 classes. Even more strikingly, these coarsely trained networks align more closely with hu- man perceptual similarity judgments than all other models evaluated, including networks trained with fine-grained supervision or self-supervision as well as leading large-scale vision models. These results demonstrate that human-like visual representations can emerge from surprisingly simple learning objectives, reframing what learning signals vision may require and opening a path toward building AI systems that are more aligned with human perception.

Human 3D vision involves two distinct stages: an Experience Module, where stereo depth is extracted relative to fixation, and an Inference Module, where this experience is interpreted to estimate 3D scene properties. Paradoxically, although stereo vision does not provide us with absolute distance information, it nonetheless affects our inferences about distance. We propose the Inference Module exploits a natural scene statistic: near scenes produce vivid disparity gradients, while far scenes appear comparatively flat. QualiaNet implements this two-stage architecture computationally: disparity maps simulating human stereo experience are passed to a CNN trained to estimate distance. The network can recover distance from disparity gradients alone, validating this approach.

The classic duck-rabbit illusion reveals that when visual evidence is ambiguous, the human brain must decide what it sees. But where exactly do human observers draw the line between ''duck'' and ''rabbit'', and do machine classifiers draw it in the same place? We use semantically ambiguous images as interpretability probes to expose how vision models represent the boundaries between concepts. We present a psychophysically-informed framework that interpolates between concepts in the CLIP embedding space to generate continuous spectra of ambiguous images, allowing us to precisely measure where and how humans and machine classifiers place their semantic boundaries. Using this framework, we show that machine classifiers are more biased towards seeing ''rabbit'', whereas humans are more aligned with the CLIP embedding used for synthesis, and the guidance scale seems to affect human sensitivity more strongly than machine classifiers. Our framework demonstrates how controlled ambiguity can serve as a diagnostic tool to bridge the gap between human psychophysical analysis, image classification, and generative image models, offering insight into human-model alignment, robustness, model interpretability, and image synthesis methods.

Vision foundation models trained with self-supervised objectives achieve strong performance across diverse tasks and exhibit emergent object segmentation properties. However, their alignment with human object perception remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce a behavioral benchmark in which participants make same/different object judgments for dot pairs on naturalistic scenes, scaling up a classical psychophysics paradigm to over 1000 trials. We test a diverse set of vision models using a simple readout from their representations to predict subjects' reaction times. We observe a steady improvement across model generations, with both architecture and training objective contributing to alignment, and transformer-based models trained with the DINO self-supervised objective showing the strongest performance. To investigate the source of this improvement, we propose a novel metric to quantify the object-centric component of representations by measuring patch similarity within and between objects. Across models, stronger object-centric structure predicts human segmentation behavior more accurately. We further show that matching the Gram matrix of supervised transformer models, capturing similarity structure across image patches, with that of a self-supervised model through distillation improves their alignment with human behavior, converging with the prior finding that Gram anchoring improves DINOv3's feature quality. Together, these results demonstrate that self-supervised vision models capture object structure in a behaviorally human-like manner, and that Gram matrix structure plays a role in driving perceptual alignment.

Alignment between human brain networks and artificial models has become an active research area in vision science and machine learning. A widely adopted approach is identifying "metamers," stimuli physically different yet perceptually equivalent within a system. However, conventional methods lack a direct approach to searching for the human metameric space. Instead, researchers first develop biologically inspired models and then infer about human metamers indirectly by testing whether model metamers also appear as metamers to humans. Here, we propose the Multidimensional Adaptive Metamer Exploration (MAME) framework, enabling direct, high-dimensional exploration of human metameric spaces through online image generation guided by human perceptual feedback. MAME modulates reference images across multiple dimensions based on hierarchical neural network responses, adaptively updating generation parameters according to participants' perceptual discriminability. Using MAME, we successfully measured multidimensional human metameric spaces within a single psychophysical experiment. Experimental results using a biologically plausible CNN model showed that human discrimination sensitivity was lower for metameric images based on Gram-matrix representations derived from low-level CNN features than for those derived from high-level CNN features. The finding suggests a relatively worse alignment between the metameric spaces of humans and the CNN model for low-level processing compared to high-level processing. Counterintuitively, given recent discussions on alignment at higher representational levels, our results highlight the importance of early visual computations in shaping biologically plausible models. Our MAME framework can serve as a future scientific tool for directly investigating the functional organization of human vision.