A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a unit to be activated - an advantage over other alternatives like strongly activating dataset samples. If humans indeed gain causal insight from visualizations, this should enable them to predict the effect of an intervention, such as how occluding a certain patch of the image (say, a dog's head) changes a unit's activation. Here, we test this hypothesis by asking humans to decide which of two square occlusions causes a larger change to a unit's activation.Both a large-scale crowdsourced experiment and measurements with experts show that on average the extremely activating feature visualizations by Olah et al. (2017) indeed help humans on this task ($68 \pm 4$% accuracy; baseline performance without any visualizations is $60 \pm 3$%). However, they do not provide any substantial advantage over other visualizations (such as e.g. dataset samples), which yield similar performance ($66\pm3$% to $67 \pm3$% accuracy). Taken together, we propose an objective psychophysical task to quantify the benefit of unit-level interpretability methods for humans, and find no evidence that a widely-used feature visualization method provides humans with better "causal understanding" of unit activations than simple alternative visualizations.

Understanding where people look in images is an important problem in computer vision. Despite significant research, it remains unclear to what extent human fixations can be predicted by low-level (contrast) compared to highlevel (presence of objects) image features. Here we address this problem by introducing two novel models that use different feature spaces but the same readout architecture. The first model predicts human fixations based on deep neural network features trained on object recognition. This model sets a new state-of-the art in fixation prediction by achieving top performance in area under the curve metrics on the MIT300 hold-out benchmark (AUC = 88%, sAUC = 77%, NSS = 2.34). The second model uses purely low-level (isotropic contrast) features. This model achieves better performance than all models not using features pretrained on object recognition, making it a strong baseline to assess the utility of high-level features. We then evaluate and visualize which fixations are better explained by lowlevel compared to high-level image features. Surprisingly we find that a substantial proportion of fixations are better explained by the simple low-level model than the stateof- the-art model. Comparing different features within the same powerful readout architecture allows us to better understand the relevance of low- versus high-level features in predicting fixation locations, while simultaneously achieving state-of-the-art saliency prediction.