You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When running images through CORnet-z, the output layer for IT, as far as I understand from the CORnet preprint, is supposed to be 7x7x512 which when flattened would be a vector of length 25088. This is indeed what happens when apply_center_crop is set to True. However, when it is set to False, the output vectors of the same images (224 x 224 pixels), same layer/module, end up being of size 32768. This behavior does not appear to be layer specific, I e.g. also tested it for the V1 output layer and the vector length also depends on whether center crop is applied or not.
I am not quite sure if this is a bug or "normal" behavior that I then just do not quite understand.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @heidamaria,
I think this is normal behavior: when input images are larger, the convolutional kernels will be applied more times, leading to larger activation vectors. E.g. a kernel of size 7x7 and no strides across a 224x224 image will be applied 32 times per row and column, but 48 times if the image is 336x336
Disclaimer: I do not know whether this is an issue with CORnet or with the THINGSvision wrapper for CORnet (see: https://github.com/ViCCo-Group/THINGSvision).
When running images through CORnet-z, the output layer for IT, as far as I understand from the CORnet preprint, is supposed to be 7x7x512 which when flattened would be a vector of length 25088. This is indeed what happens when apply_center_crop is set to True. However, when it is set to False, the output vectors of the same images (224 x 224 pixels), same layer/module, end up being of size 32768. This behavior does not appear to be layer specific, I e.g. also tested it for the V1 output layer and the vector length also depends on whether center crop is applied or not.
I am not quite sure if this is a bug or "normal" behavior that I then just do not quite understand.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: