aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that vision transformers maintain strong predictive alignment with human EEG signals at deeper network layers, whereas convolutional networks lose this correspondence due to classification bottlenecks. The findings suggest that preserving patch tokens and avoiding early classification constraints allows transformer architectures to better model the persistence of brain-relevant visual information. For researchers in neural decoding and brain-computer interfaces, these results highlight architectural choices over training objectives as the primary driver of biological plausibility in vision models.
Do Vision Model See Like the Brain? A Comparison Across EEG Encoding Model
arXiv:2609.26512v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Title:Do Vision Model See Like the Brain? A Comparison Across EEG Encoding Model
Abstract: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.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2609.26512 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2609.26512v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26512 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 348 words
