Abstract
Abstract
Category selectivity for images of faces, scenes, and bodies is among the most striking and reproducible findings in vision neuroscience. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) trained on visual tasks also develop category-selective units, which has led to the suggestion that ANNs may capture important aspects of how the brain processes visual categories. But the mere presence of category-selective units in ANNs does not mean that those units are selective in the same way as the brain. Here, we distinguish between the presence of category-selective units in ANNs from the form of selectivity they express, and show that the selectivity that emerges in ANN units differs in meaningful and systematic ways from that observed in the human brain with fMRI. To this end, we first identified category-selective units in a wide range of ANN models using standard fMRI localizers, and found that selective units emerged reliably in trained, but not in untrained, ANNs. We then identified category-selective regions in the human brain using the same localizer and found that their response tuning to a broad range of images was strikingly consistent across individuals. Thus, category-selective regions exhibit a stable representational signature shared across subjects. Category-selective ANN units did not match this structure. Their responses diverged in both univariate tuning and multivariate representational geometry, fell well below the human-human ceiling, varied substantially across models, and depended strongly on the localizer used to identify them. We also found that the category-selective ANN units were neither necessary nor sufficient for predicting neural responses using an encoding model. Further stimulus-level analyses revealed clear and interpretable mismatches between ANN selectivity and human fMRI responses, which can be used to test and compare better ANN models in the future. Taken together, these results show that the full range of response tuning in category-selective regions provides a highly demanding and discriminative test of brain-model alignment than previously appreciated. Although current ANNs contain category-selective units, the selectivity they express is more fragile and does not capture the stable and shared form of selectivity observed in the human brain.
Direct answer
What can I do from this paper page?
Use this page to scan "Category selectivity observed in the human brain is distinct from category selectivity observed in artificial neural networks" quickly: start with the summary and abstract, then check the authors, source, topics, and related papers. From here, open Scollr to follow Face Recognition and Perception research, save the paper, or map adjacent work.
Research areas
Follow related topics
Citation
BibTeX
@article{Dipani2026Category,
title = {Category selectivity observed in the human brain is distinct from category selectivity observed in artificial neural networks},
author = {Alish Dipani and N. Apurva Ratan Murty},
journal = {bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.05.29.728609},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.05.29.728609}
}
FAQ
Using this paper in a discovery workflow
How do I find related work for this paper?
Use the related papers and topic links on this page as starting points. In Scollr, you can also open the paper and build a literature map around its references, citing papers, and related work.
How can I keep up with new Face Recognition and Perception research papers?
Follow Face Recognition and Perception research in Scollr. New papers from the topic flow into a personalized feed, and you can save useful studies to revisit later.
Can I cite this paper from this page?
This page includes a static BibTeX block for Category selectivity observed in the human brain is distinct from category selectivity observed in artificial neural networks. Always verify the DOI, source, and publication details against the publisher record before submitting a manuscript.
Follow this research in Scollr
Follow the topics and authors behind this paper, save useful studies, and build a literature map when you are ready to go deeper.
Get the app