Refine
Document Type
- Preprint (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Institute
The pitfalls of measuring representational similarity using representational similarity analysis
(2022)
A core challenge in cognitive and brain sciences is to assess whether different biological systems represent the world in a similar manner. Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) is an innovative approach to address this problem and has become increasingly popular across disciplines ranging from artificial intelligence to computational neuroscience. Despite these successes, RSA regularly uncovers difficult-to-reconcile and contradictory findings. Here, we demonstrate the pitfalls of using RSA and explain how contradictory findings arise due to false inferences about representational similarity based on RSA-scores. In a series of studies that capture increasingly plausible training and testing scenarios, we compare neural representations in computational models, primate cortex and human cortex. These studies reveal two problematic phenomena that are ubiquitous in current research: a “mimic” effect, where confounds in stimuli can lead to high RSA-scores between provably dissimilar systems, and a “modulation effect”, where RSA-scores become dependent on stimuli used for testing. Since our results bear on a number of influential findings and the inferences drawn by current practitioners in a wide range of disciplines, we provide recommendations to avoid these pitfalls and sketch a way forward to a more solid science of representation in cognitive systems.
Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) is an innovative approach used to compare neural representations across individuals, species and computational models. Despite its popularity within neuroscience, psychology and artificial intelligence, this approach has led to difficult-to-reconcile and contradictory findings, particularly when comparing primate visual representations with deep neural networks (DNNs). Here, we demonstrate how such contradictory findings could arise due to incorrect inferences about mechanism when comparing complex systems processing high-dimensional stimuli. In a series of studies comparing computational models, primate cortex and human cortex we find two problematic phenomena: a “mimic effect”, where confounds in stimuli can lead to high RSA-scores between provably dissimilar systems, and a “modulation effect”, where RSA- scores become dependent on stimuli used for testing. Since our results bear on a number of influential findings, we provide recommendations to avoid these pitfalls and sketch a way forward to a more solid science of representation in cognitive systems.
Some pitfalls of measuring representational similarity using Representational Similarity Analysis
(2022)
A core challenge in cognitive and brain sciences is to assess whether different biological systems represent the world in a similar manner. Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) is an innovative approach that addresses this problem by looking for a second-order isomorphisim in neural activation patterns. This innovation makes it easy to compare latent representations across individuals, species and computational models, and accounts for its popularity across disciplines ranging from artificial intelligence to computational neuroscience. Despite these successes, using RSA has led to difficult-to-reconcile and contradictory findings, particularly when comparing primate visual representations with deep neural networks (DNNs): even though DNNs have been shown to learn and behave in vastly different ways to humans, comparisons based on RSA have shown striking similarities in some studies. Here, we demonstrate some pitfalls of using RSA and explain how contradictory findings can arise due to false inferences about representational similarity based on RSA-scores. In a series of studies that capture increasingly plausible training and testing scenarios, we compare neural representations in computational models, primate cortex and human cortex. These studies reveal two problematic phenomena that are ubiquitous in current research: a “mimic effect”, where confounds in stimuli can lead to high RSA-scores between provably dissimilar systems, and a “modulation effect”, where RSA-scores become dependent on stimuli used for testing. Since our results bear on a number of influential findings, such as comparisons made between human visual representations and those of primates and DNNs, we provide recommendations to avoid these pitfalls and sketch a way forward to a more solid science of representation in cognitive systems.
The pitfalls of measuring representational similarity using representational similarity analysis
(2022)
A core challenge in neuroscience is to assess whether diverse systems represent the world similarly. Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) is an innovative approach to address this problem and has become increasingly popular across disciplines from machine learning to computational neuroscience. Despite these successes, RSA regularly uncovers difficult-to-reconcile and contradictory findings. Here we demonstrate the pitfalls of using RSA to infer representational similarity and explain how contradictory findings arise and support false inferences when left unchecked. By comparing neural representations in primate, human and computational models, we reveal two problematic phenomena that are ubiquitous in current research: a “mimic” effect, where confounds in stimuli can lead to high RSA scores between provably dissimilar systems, and a “modulation effect”, where RSA-scores become dependent on stimuli used for testing. Since our results bear on existing findings and inferences, we provide recommendations to avoid these pitfalls and sketch a way forward.