How Much is Brain Data Worth for Machine Learning?

Scaling data and artificial neural networks has transformed AI, driving breakthroughs in language and vision. Whether similar principles apply to modeling brain activity remains unclear. Here we leveraged a dataset of 3.1 million neurons from the visual cortex of 73 mice across 323 sessions, totaling more than 150 billion neural tokens recorded during natural movies, images and parametric stimuli, and behavior. We train multi-modal, multi-task models that support three regimes flexibly at test time: neural prediction, behavioral decoding, neural forecasting, or any combination of the three. OmniMouse achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming specialized baselines across nearly all evaluation regimes. We find that performance scales reliably with more data, but gains from increasing model size saturate. This inverts the standard AI scaling story: in language and computer vision, massive datasets make parameter scaling the primary driver of progress, whereas in brain modeling -- even in the mouse visual cortex, a relatively simple system -- models remain data-limited despite vast recordings. The observation of systematic scaling raises the possibility of phase transitions in neural modeling, where larger and richer datasets might unlock qualitatively new capabilities, paralleling the emergent properties seen in large language models. Code available at https://github.com/enigma-brain/omnimouse.

Deep learning and large public datasets have recently catalyzed the proliferation of AI models for processing brain recordings. However, systematically evaluating these models remains a challenge: not only do the preprocessing pipelines, training and finetuning approaches largely vary across studies, but their downstream evaluation is often limited to small sets of tasks and/or datasets. Here, we present NeuralBench: a unified framework for benchmarking AI models of brain activity. We accompany this framework with NeuralBench-EEG v1.0 -- a large EEG benchmark that includes 36 electroencephalography (EEG) tasks and 14 deep learning architectures, and is evaluated on 94 datasets accessed through a standardized interface. This first EEG-focused release already highlights two main findings. First, current foundation models only marginally outperform task-specific models. Second, a large set of tasks (e.g. cognitive decoding, clinical predictions) remain highly challenging, even for the best models. Critically, NeuralBench is designed for the integration of new tasks, datasets, models, and neuroimaging modalities, as illustrated by preliminary extensions to MEG and fMRI datasets and models. Through this white paper, we invite the community to expand this open-source framework and work together toward a unified benchmarking standard for neuroimaging models.

Larger models learn tasks smaller models do not. What drives this phenomenon? We develop a simple phenomenological argument that power-law scaling already suggests that a larger model will be able to learn a part of the data distribution that a smaller model fails to learn, even with infinite training data. To validate this claim and identify its causes, we study the effects of model scaling on a synthetic setup consisting of a mixture of tasks that show monotonic scaling curves. The results point to a data-induced competition over resources (neurons). Specifically, smaller models allocate their neurons to high frequency or low complexity tasks, and so they learn solutions that perform poorly on rare and complex tasks. Moreover, this happens even when solutions capable of expressing the desired task exist. We then assess how a larger model circumvents this data-centric bottleneck, finding that it traces to a reduced interference mechanism: larger models can allocate enough resources to common tasks that the gradient updates for those tasks become weak, which means that they do not overwrite rare-task features as they slowly accumulate. Finally, to further validate these claims, we pretrain OLMo models (4M to 4B parameters) on novel tasks of varying frequency and complexity. The results mirror those from our synthetic data experiments: only the larger OLMo models learn the infrequent and complex tasks, and these larger models embed more task features in their representations and show less gradient interference between tasks. Overall, we offer a data-centric account of why larger models learn tasks that smaller models fail to. This helps explain why larger models are better in practice, and it can inform practical questions concerning model sizing and training data mixtures.