Pretrained vision embeddings are increasingly used as general-purpose representations for modelling how people appraise urban scenes, and are validated almost entirely by how well they predict human ratings. High predictive accuracy does not establish that these embeddings organise scenes as human perception does. We test the two properties separately against brain data. Using openly released EEG from 63 adults who viewed and rated 56 Berlin street scenes, we estimate the representational geometry of the scenes over time, the proportion of that geometry that is explainable at all, and its correspondence with seventeen feature spaces spanning language-supervised, self-supervised, category-supervised and dense-prediction training, two orders of magnitude of scale, and interpretable controls. Correspondence is low throughout: the best representation, DINOv2 ViT-B, reaches 29.6% of the lower bound of the noise ceiling, the panel spans 11.0% to 29.6%, and a Gabor energy descriptor is indistinguishable from the best model while outperforming every language-supervised model tested. Within a model, deeper layers still match later neural responses, so the hierarchical correspondence found for object recognition survives even at this low overall level. The same embeddings predict held-out appraisal ratings well, up to r = 0.87, and the two measures do not track each other across models; reweighting features towards the neural geometry lowers appraisal prediction for every model tested, against a control of matched dimensionality. Predicting how a street is appraised is therefore weak evidence that a model represents the street as the brain does. The benchmark uses only public data and requires no training, so evaluating a new representation needs only its embeddings for 55 images.

翻译：暂无翻译