Nils Leutenegger

Nils Leutenegger

Random, untrained neural networks consistently match or exceed trained networks in representational similarity to early visual cortex. This puzzling finding challenges the assumption that learning improves brain alignment. We investigate it by tracking representational similarity analysis (RSA) alignment to human fMRI data across training for four learning rules: backpropagation (BP), feedback alignment (FA), predictive coding (PC), and spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP). Using 720 object images from the THINGS database and fMRI data from three subjects across six visual ROIs, we measure Spearman correlations between model and brain representational dissimilarity matrices at eight training checkpoints (epochs 0-40). We find that (1) a single epoch of training reduces V1 alignment by 25-90%, depending on the learning rule; (2) backpropagation reduces V1 alignment most severely (delta r = -0.080), while predictive coding and STDP preserve substantially more (delta r ~ -0.04); and (3) a weaker, opposite tendency appears in object-selective cortex (LOC), where BP shows the largest increase in alignment during training, although the absolute change is small. These results suggest that untrained architectures capture low-level visual statistics through inductive biases alone, and that global error signals (BP) reshape early representations more aggressively than local learning rules (PC, STDP), which better preserve brain-like structure.

Nils Leutenegger

Does the relationship between learning rules and brain alignment generalize across species? We extend our prior finding that untrained CNNs match backpropagation at human V1 by testing the same five learning rules against macaque electrophysiology. The rules are backpropagation (BP), feedback alignment (FA), predictive coding (PC), spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP), and an untrained random-weights baseline. The macaque data come from two datasets: MajajHong2015 (V4/IT, 3,200 stimulus presentations, 88/168 neurons) and FreemanZiemba2013 (V1/V2, 135 stimuli, 102/103 neurons). Using RSA with identical model weights from our human study, we find: (1) all models achieve higher alignment with macaque early visual cortex (rho = 0.15-0.30 at V1/V2) than with human fMRI (rho = 0.01-0.08), consistent with the higher signal-to-noise ratio of electrophysiology; (2) STDP and PC produce the highest macaque V1/V2 alignment (rho ~ 0.30 and 0.28), consistent with their leading position among trained rules in human V1; (3) at IT, learning rule rankings show no detectable correlation across species (Kendall's tau = 0.00, p = 1.00), though this null result is expected given that n = 5 provides power only at tau = +/-1.0, and is further confounded by stimulus set differences; (4) a pretrained ResNet-50 (ImageNet) achieves rho = 0.25 at macaque IT, substantially above all custom CNN conditions (rho = 0.07-0.14), suggesting IT alignment is limited by model capacity and training data rather than by the learning rule. Noise ceilings, multi-seed variability (5 seeds), and a stimulus-control analysis are reported. These results demonstrate that early visual alignment is robust across species, while higher-area alignment is modulated by model capacity and stimulus domain.

Nils Leutenegger

A central question in computational neuroscience is whether the learning rule used to train a neural network determines how well its internal representations align with those of the human visual cortex. We present a systematic comparison of four learning rules -- backpropagation (BP), feedback alignment (FA), predictive coding (PC), and spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) -- applied to identical convolutional architectures and evaluated against human fMRI data from the THINGS-fMRI dataset (720 stimuli, 3 subjects) using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA). Crucially, we include an untrained random-weights baseline that reveals the dominant role of architecture. We find that early visual alignment (V1/V2) is primarily architecture-driven: an untrained CNN achieves rho = 0.071, statistically indistinguishable from BP (rho = 0.072, p = 0.43). Learning rules only differentiate at higher visual areas: BP dominates at LOC/IT, and PC with local Hebbian updates achieves IT alignment statistically indistinguishable from BP (p = 0.18). FA consistently impairs representations below the random baseline at V1. Partial RSA confirms all effects survive pixel-similarity control. These results demonstrate that the relationship between learning rules and cortical alignment is region-specific: architecture determines early alignment, while supervised objectives drive late alignment.