As machine learning is increasingly applied to high-impact, high-risk domains, there have been a number of new methods aimed at making AI models more human interpretable. Despite the recent growth of interpretability work, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of proposed techniques. In this work, we propose a novel human evaluation framework HIVE (Human Interpretability of Visual Explanations) for diverse interpretability methods in computer vision; to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of its kind. We argue that human studies should be the gold standard in properly evaluating how interpretable a method is to human users. While human studies are often avoided due to challenges associated with cost, study design, and cross-method comparison, we describe how our framework mitigates these issues and conduct IRB-approved studies of four methods that represent the diversity of interpretability works: GradCAM, BagNet, ProtoPNet, and ProtoTree. Our results suggest that explanations (regardless of if they are actually correct) engender human trust, yet are not distinct enough for users to distinguish between correct and incorrect predictions. Lastly, we also open-source our framework to enable future studies and to encourage more human-centered approaches to interpretability.