Current deep neural networks (DNNs) are far from being able to model the rich landscape of human visual experience. Beyond visual recognition, we explore the neural substrates of visual mental imagery and other visual experiences. Rather than shared visual representations, temporal dynamics and functional connectivity of the process are essential. Generative adversarial networks may drive future developments in simulating human visual experience.

An incomplete science begets imperfect models. Nevertheless, the target article advocates for jettisoning deep-learning models with some competency in object recognition for toy models evaluated against a checklist of laboratory findings; an approach which evokes Alan Newell's 20 questions critique. We believe their approach risks incoherency and neglects the most basic test; can the model perform its intended task.

Depending on what we mean by “explanation,” challenges to the explanatory depth and reach of deep neural network models of visual and other forms of intelligent behavior may need revisions to both the elementary building blocks of neural nets (the explananda) and to the ways in which experimental environments and training protocols are engineered (the explanantia). The two paths assume and imply sharply different conceptions of how an explanation explains and of the explanatory function of models.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) provide a unique opportunity to move towards a generic modelling framework in psychology. The high representational capacity of these models combined with the possibility for further extensions has already allowed us to investigate the forest, namely the complex landscape of representations and processes that underlie human cognition, without forgetting about the trees, which include individual psychological phenomena.

Bowers et al. focus their criticisms on research that compares behavioral and brain data from the ventral stream with a class of deep neural networks for object recognition. While they are right to identify issues with current benchmarking research programs, they overlook a much more fundamental limitation of this literature: Disregarding the importance of action and interaction for perception.

Deep neural network (DNN) models of human-like vision are typically built by feeding blank slate DNN visual images as training data. However, the literature on human perception and perceptual learning suggests that developing DNNs that truly model human vision requires a shift in approach in which perception is not treated as a largely bottom-up process, but as an active, top-down-guided process.

Bowers et al. eloquently describe issues with current deep neural network (DNN) models of vision, claiming that there are deficits both with the methods of assessment, and with the models themselves. I am in agreement with both these claims, but propose a different recipe to the one outlined in the target article for overcoming these issues.

The dissociation between statistical prediction and scientific explanation advanced by Bowers et al. for studies of vision using deep neural networks is also observed in several other domains of behavior research, and is in fact unavoidable when fitting large models such as deep nets and other supervised learners, with weak theoretical commitments, to restricted samples of highly stochastic behavioral phenomena.

Bowers et al. rightly emphasise that deep learning models often fail to capture constraints on visual perception that have been discovered by previous research. However, the solution is not to discard deep learning altogether, but to design stimuli and tasks that more closely reflect the problems that biological vision evolved to solve, such as understanding scenes and preparing skilled action.

Pigs can't fly. Any person buying a pig should understand this – it would be absurd to be upset that they can't fly or play poker. But pigs are amazing creatures and can do many interesting and useful things.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have found many useful applications in recent years. Of particular interest have been those instances where their successes imitate human cognition and many consider artificial intelligences to offer a lens for understanding human intelligence. Here, we criticize the underlying conflation between the predictive and explanatory power of DNNs by examining the goals of modeling.

Neither the hype exemplified in some exaggerated claims about deep neural networks (DNNs), nor the gloom expressed by Bowers et al. do DNNs as models in vision science justice: DNNs rapidly evolve, and today's limitations are often tomorrow's successes. In addition, providing explanations as well as prediction and image-computability are model desiderata; one should not be favoured at the expense of the other.

Bowers et al. bring forward critical issues in the current use of deep neural networks (DNNs) to model primate vision. Our own research further reveals fundamentally different algorithms utilized by DNNs for visual processing compared to the brain. It is time to reemphasize the value of basic vision research and put more resources and effort on understanding the primate brain itself.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful computational models, which generate complex, high-level representations that were missing in previous models of human cognition. By studying these high-level representations, psychologists can now gain new insights into the nature and origin of human high-level vision, which was not possible with traditional handcrafted models. Abandoning DNNs would be a huge oversight for psychological sciences.

On several key issues we agree with the commentators. Perhaps most importantly, everyone seems to agree that psychology has an important role to play in building better models of human vision, and (most) everyone agrees (including us) that deep neural networks (DNNs) will play an important role in modelling human vision going forward. But there are also disagreements about what models are for, how DNN–human correspondences should be evaluated, the value of alternative modelling approaches, and impact of marketing hype in the literature. In our view, these latter issues are contributing to many unjustified claims regarding DNN–human correspondences in vision and other domains of cognition. We explore all these issues in this response.