The rebuttal and additional analyses seemed to satisfy most of the reviewers, so thanks to the authors for their thorough and responsive reply. Overall this seems like important, well-presented work, and hence I'm recommending acceptance. That said, there was a suggestion to apply the analysis of figure 4 to natural images (it seems like from the initial analysis included in the rebuttal that the results shouldn't be surprising). I sympathize with the argument that artificial stimuli are often used in neuroscience, but in this case I think performing this analysis on natural images would provide a nice sanity check, and I think many NeurIPS readers would also be curious. I don't think that lack of this analysis is enough to reject the paper, but I'd like to request authors include this for the final version.