When Model Complexity Matters in Cross-Subject Naturalistic fMRI Prediction
Authors: Junhao Zhao, Jacob Kang, Colin Kurniawan, David Simberg, Nan Xu
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA · Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA · Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA · Brain and Behavior Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA · Artificial Intelligence Interdisciplinary Institute at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Increasingly complex neural models predict blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses to naturalistic stimuli, but the predictive value of this added complexity remains unclear. We ask when pretrained stimulus representations help and how much downstream complexity is needed, with and without recent measured BOLD history. We compare linear diagnostic references and nonlinear predictors across HCP movie fMRI (154 subjects), BOLD Moments (10 subjects), and Algonauts 2025 (4 subjects). Under a shared offline protocol, models are fitted on training subjects and evaluated on held-out subjects viewing largely familiar stimuli, without refitting. Pretrained visual features generally improve prediction over raw pixels; for linear autoregression, this advantage becomes more pronounced over longer rollouts (recursive predictions without additional measured BOLD). Measured BOLD history provides substantial gains that generally diminish {as rollouts lengthen}. Nonlinear stimulus-only predictors can improve on linear readouts, whereas linear autoregression provides a strong history-conditioned baseline. Controls examine context length, regularization, fitting procedures, and model capacity. Regional response consistency across subjects is associated with held-out prediction accuracy, while less consistent regions tend to gain more from measured history. In paired simulations with fixed linear neural dynamics, slower hemodynamic responses generally sustain high temporal prediction correlations over longer rollouts, illustrating how the observation process can contribute to predictive persistence. Together, these findings support evaluating stimulus representations and downstream complexity separately, using history-conditioned linear prediction as a diagnostic reference under matched inputs and measurement availability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of cross-subject naturalistic fMRI prediction and main findings.
Figure 2: Pixels versus V-JEPA visual representations across representative models on HCP four movies (a) and ridge predictors across three datasets (b). Results include all designated folds and neural seeds 0/1/2; complete comparisons are provided in Appendix C.1 .
Figure 3: Cross-subject fMRI prediction across three datasets for eight predictors and history-only refits of RR-AR, BrainVista, MLP, and GRU. Error bars show SD across held-out subjects. Complete ablation results and the rationale for excluding NeuroWorld’s history-only control are provided in Appendix D.2 .
Figure 4: Regional prediction and functional connectivity (FC) on HCP at H=32 . Top: parcelwise temporal prediction correlations. Bottom: mean predicted FC (lower triangles) and intersubject SD of Fisher- z FC (upper triangles). Annotations report predicted–measured FC similarity (mean ± SD across held-out subjects). Full three-dataset results: Appendix E.1 .
Figure 5: Regional prediction accuracy and BOLD-history gains ( H=32 ) versus training-subject response consistency. Each point represents a cortical parcel, with prediction performance evaluated on held-out subjects and response consistency (x-axis) computed across training subjects. (a) Absolute prediction accuracy for RR-AR. (b) Prediction gain of RR-AR over RR-stim.
Figure 6: Effect of hemodynamic response timing on RR-AR prediction. (a) Audiovisual circuit. (b) Fast, medium, and slow Balloon–Windkessel HRFs. (c) Prediction across refresh intervals and stimulus schedules for the no-HRF neural reference and HRF conditions. Solid lines show history-plus-stimulus predictions; dashed lines show history-only refits. Conditions share neural trajectories; TR=1 s. Error bars: paired-subject bootstrap 95% CIs. Details: Appendix F .
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
HCP four movies
BOLD Moments
Algonauts 2025
Subjects
154
10
4
Subject split
107/15/32
Five two-subject folds
Four LOSO folds
TR
1.00 s
1.75 s
1.49 s
Movie duration
49.4 min
5.1 min
63.1 h
Unique clips
15
102
331
Clip duration
1.1–4.3 min
3 s
∼ 10–12 min
Appendix
Table 2: Dataset designs and cross-subject splits. A stimulus unit denotes a unique movie clip for HCP and BOLD Moments, and a unique movie segment for Algonauts. Unique duration excludes fixation and repeated presentations. BOLD Moments additionally includes 4-s null trials. Full details are provided in Appendix A .
Figure 7: Prediction blocks for H=1,2,4 and never , illustrated for 12 target frames. Blue markers indicate the measured BOLD history supplied at each block start; supplying measured history again between blocks is termed a refresh . Arrows within red blocks indicate autoregressive rollout. Predicted blocks are concatenated before scoring.
Predictor input
Mapping
Prediction algorithm
Representative work
Stimulus features
Linear
Ridge-regression voxel-wise readout
Wen et al. [ 30 ]
Stimulus features
Nonlinear
Temporal Transformer
TRIBE; TRIBE v2 [ 5 , 6 ]
Stimulus features
Nonlinear
Adaptive layer aggregation and temporal brain encoder
MIRAGE [ 11 ]
BOLD history
Linear
Linear autoregressive models; linearized graph-based predictors
Nozari et al.; Paugam et al. [ 22 , 24 ]
Stimulus features and BOLD history
Nonlinear
Brain tokenizer and autoregressive Transformer
BrainVista [ 33 ]
Stimulus features and BOLD history
Nonlinear
Latent dynamics model and rollout decoder
NeuroWorld [ 4 ]
Appendix
Table 3: Representative downstream prediction approaches, organized by input and prediction algorithm. Linear and nonlinear refer to the downstream predictor, independently of the stimulus encoder. Benchmark adaptations and diagnostic references are described in Section 3.1 .
Model/stage
Max epochs
Batch
Optimizer
LR
WD
Schedule / clip norm
BrainVista tokenizer
50
32
AdamW
2⋅10−5
.01
Constant / .5
BrainVista predictor
40
32
AdamW
2⋅10−4
.01
5% warmup, cosine / .5
NeuroWorld LDL
50
16
AdamW
2⋅10−4
.01
100-update warmup, cosine / .5
NeuroWorld decoder
200
16
AdamW
10−3
.01
500-update warmup, cosine / .5
TRIBE v2 scratch
15
8
Adam
10−4
0
10% warmup, OneCycle / none
MIRAGE
15
16
AdamW
10−4
.01
10% warmup, OneCycle / 1.0
Appendix
Table 4: Declared optimization ceilings and schedules. Every neural stage has patience 10; final prediction stages select by complete-coverage BOLD MSE. Pretraining uses the indicated stage loss. Numbers are not a claim that every stage runs to its ceiling.
Component
Source and scope
Shared input/test protocol
Study design: C=8, dataset K, HRF=3 TR, fixed three-modality slots, full validation MSE, patience10 and temporal ROI corr. These replace model-native evaluation conventions.
BrainVista
Published two-stage structure and nominal training budgets; our implementation supplies dimension reconciliation, mask/filter choices, atlas-label grouping and shared autonomous BOLD-MSE training.
NeuroWorld
Published LDL/decoder structure and nominal budgets; latent widths, SIGReg settings and shared decoder are specified implementation choices; the adapter supplies all C observed frames.
TRIBE v2
Released FmriEncoder class and architecture/config-derived optimizer schedule; scratch initialization, atlas-sized output, shared normalization, common input interval and val-loss selection are comparison adaptations.
Ridge
Explicit affine design, covariance divided by training-row count, intercept unpenalized; adaptive boundary search uses common K-step val MSE.
MIRAGE
Released downstream code and declared width/depth; common cached features, shared ROI readout, no test-subject head fitting, and common validation-MSE selection.
Appendix
Table 5: Configuration provenance and deliberate comparison adaptations. Scientific choices are declared in the shared configuration and, for MIRAGE, its explicit adapter settings, not runtime paper defaults.
Model
HCP
BOLD
Algonauts
RR-AR
19.009
19.009
19.009
RR-AR (rank64)
1.282
1.282
1.282
RR-stim
11.009
11.009
11.009
TRIBE v2 scratch
356.526
153.675
143.430
BrainVista
7.649
7.649
7.649
NeuroWorld
7.613
7.613
7.613
Appendix
Table 6: Downstream model size in millions of allocated parameters or fitted coefficients, excluding frozen stimulus extractors. MLP and GRU are omitted from the table because their parameter counts match dense RR-AR within 1% in each dataset. Rank64 counts the stored factors and output offsets of one prespecified reduced-rank setting; the full rank sweep is shown in Figure 17 .
Figure 8: Complete eight-model pixels versus V-JEPA comparison on HCP, BOLD Moments and Algonauts 2025 Datasets. All designated held-out subjects and neural seeds 0/1/2 are included. Bars show seed SD; RR-AR and RR-stim are deterministic. Dotted connectors lead to the categorical no-refresh endpoint ( never ).
Figure 9: Matched V, A and T inputs across datasets and models. Every displayed neural curve includes all designated held-out subjects and seeds 0/1/2; bars show sample SD of the three subject-equal seed means. Ridge fits are deterministic. All model–input combinations are complete; incomplete seeds or folds are not pooled. The y-axis is absolute temporal ROI correlation; finite H extends to 192, with dotted guides to the categorical never endpoint. BOLD was presented silently, so A/T are source-feature controls. TRIBE and RR-stim are history-free references.
Figure 10: Matched VA, VT and AT controls. All models cover every designated fold and seeds 0/1/2; bars are sample SD of subject-equal seed means. Ridge fits are deterministic. NeuroWorld includes the explicitly documented FP32 recovery fits. BOLD was presented silently.
Figure 11: Generalization across visual encoders on HCP four movies. Each panel compares pixels, V-JEPA, CLIP (ViT-bigG/14), and DINOv2 (ViT-B/14) within one predictor. Curves show temporal ROI correlation across 32 held-out subjects and 1,000 parcels. MLP results are averaged over seeds 0/1/2, with bars indicating sample SD across seed-level means; deterministic ridge fits have no seed error bars. The categorical never endpoint denotes no further measured-history refresh; dotted connectors are visual guides. Feature dimensions and preprocessing are encoder-specific, so this comparison evaluates representation pipelines rather than a dimension-matched encoder ablation.
Figure 12: Context-length controls for C∈{1,4,8} (rows), with the benchmark training interval fixed. Columns show HCP four movies, BOLD Moments, and Algonauts 2025 using HCP/BOLD fold0 and Algonauts sub-01. All six neural models use seeds 0/1/2; error bars denote sample SD across seeds. Deterministic ridge fits have no seed error bars. Benchmark references use the same held-out fold as the corresponding context-length controls. Both ridge references, all six neural models, and all 14 refresh settings are included. RR-stim does not use measured BOLD context and is therefore unchanged across rows.
Figure 13: History-only, main and stimulus-only comparisons. Each panel shows that column’s main model (history plus stimulus), with history-only ablations for RR-AR, BrainVista, MLP, and GRU, alongside the same three available stimulus-only references: RR-stim, TRIBE v2 and MIRAGE. Neural curves show the mean over seeds 0/1/2 with sample-SD shading; ridge fits are deterministic. BOLD Moments aggregates all five held-out folds, and Algonauts aggregates sub-01, sub-02, sub-03 and sub-05. NeuroWorld is shown with its main inputs only; its history-only control is excluded for the methodological reason described above.
Figure 14: Neural-model training-interval controls for K=8/32/ benchmark (rows), with C=8 throughout. Benchmark K is 64 for HCP/BOLD Moments and 92 for Algonauts. The six neural models are trained separately at each K using seeds 0/1/2. RR-AR and RR-stim are fixed benchmark references repeated across rows.
Figure 15: Same-objective mini-batch optimization control, HCP/BOLD fold0 and Algonauts sub-01, seeds 0/1/2. Top: (J−J∗)/(J0−J∗) during zero-initialized Adam training; thin lines are individual seeds and the thick line is their mean. The dotted line is the prespecified objective-gap threshold, not a performance-equivalence margin. All nine runs reach 300 epochs without satisfying both numerical convergence criteria. Bottom: absolute temporal ROI correlation of the terminal mini-batch models (mean ± sample SD across three seeds) and the fresh closed-form reference. The near-overlap reflects predictive agreement, not certified convergence. Dotted connectors to never are visual guides to a categorical finite-record condition. No validation/test checkpoint selection or RR initialization is used.
Figure 16: Fixed-grid regularization controls, seed0, one declared fold per dataset. Every tested penalty is shown through H=192 and never, the finite-record no-refresh endpoint.
Figure 17: Reduced-rank controls for the joint RR-AR predictor. All prespecified ranks and the matched dense fit use video, audio, and text features, with C=8 and separately validation-selected ridge penalties. Curves show absolute temporal ROI correlation over all designated folds at H=1–96. Fits are deterministic; seed0 does not denote independent replication. Parameter accounting follows Appendix B.5 .
Figure 18: Ground-truth and predicted functional connectivity at H=32 across three datasets, with parcels ordered by Yeo-7 network. In the HCP row, lower triangles show group-average FC in Pearson- r units (left colorbar), and upper triangles show intersubject variability, quantified as the sample SD across subjects of subject-level Fisher- z FC values after averaging across seeds within subject (right colorbar, range 0–0.25). BOLD Moments and Algonauts show mean FC in both triangles; intersubject variability is reported only for HCP.
Dataset
RR-AR
RR-stim
TRIBE v2
BrainVista
NeuroWorld
MIRAGE
MLP
GRU
HCP four movies
0.73±0.04
0.59±0.05
0.56±0.05
0.72±0.03
0.48±0.04
0.58±0.05
0.65±0.04
0.63±0.05
BOLD Moments
0.63±0.05
0.44±0.04
0.18±0.03
0.47±0.04
0.19±0.03
0.39±0.03
0.38±0.03
0.35±0.05
Algonauts 2025
0.69±0.01
0.60±0.01
0.63±0.01
0.70±0.01
0.47±0.01
0.64±0.01
0.69±0.01
0.64±0.01
Appendix
Table 7: Similarity between predicted and ground-truth functional connectivity at H=32 , measured by Pearson correlation between their off-diagonal upper-triangular entries. Values report the mean ± sample SD across held-out subjects after averaging the three seed-specific correlations within each subject.
Dataset
Subjects
Parcels
RR-AR
RR-stim
History gain
HCP four movies
32
1,000
0.986
0.989
−0.498
BOLD Moments
10
1,000
0.809
0.871
−0.381
Algonauts 2025
4
1,000
0.969
0.962
−0.170
Appendix
Table 8: Across-parcel Spearman associations between training-subject response consistency and held-out prediction at H=96 . History gain is RR-AR minus RR-stim. These longer-horizon summaries are descriptive spatial associations, not tests over independent parcels.
Figure 19: Comparison of eight models and four history-only controls on simulated neural and BOLD data. Rows show sustained, 5 s ON/25 s OFF, and 20 s ON/20 s OFF stimulation; columns show the no-HRF neural reference and fast, medium, and slow HRFs. Solid lines show full-input predictions (stimulus only or history plus stimulus); dashed lines with open markers show history-only refits. Correlations are averaged over 11 ROIs and then across seeds within subject for neural models. Curves show means across 10 test subjects; error bars show SD across subjects. Never denotes no refresh after the initial context; TR=1 s. Values and error-bar portions below zero are clipped.
Forecasting neural activity in response to naturalistic stimuli remains a key challenge for understanding brain dynamics and enabling downstream neurotechnological applications. Here, we introduce a generative forecasting framework for modeling neural dynamics based on autoregressive flow matching (AFM). Building on recent advances in transport-based generative modeling, our approach probabilistically predicts neural responses at scale from multimodal sensory input. Specifically, we learn the conditional distribution of future neural activity given past neural dynamics and concurrent sensory input, explicitly modeling neural activity as a temporally evolving process in which future states depend on recent neural history. We evaluate our framework on the Algonauts project 2025 challenge functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset using subject-specific models. AFM significantly outperforms both a non-autoregressive flow-matching baseline and the official challenge general linear model baseline in predicting short-term parcel-wise blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) activity, demonstrating improved generalization and widespread cortical prediction performance. Ablation analyses show that access to past BOLD dynamics is a dominant driver of performance, while autoregressive factorization yields consistent, modest gains under short-horizon, context-rich conditions. Together, these findings position autoregressive flow-based generative modeling as an effective approach for short-term probabilistic forecasting of neural dynamics with promising applications in closed-loop neurotechnology.
Nicole Rogalla, Yuzhen Qin, Mario Senden +2
Department of Machine Learning and Neural Computing, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands · Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands · Maastricht Brain Imaging Center, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
Brain encoding models predict time-resolved neural activity from computational representations of ongoing experience, providing a principled framework for testing how information is represented and transformed across cortical systems. Naturalistic audiovisual narratives are a particularly rich but challenging testbed for these models, requiring integration of multimodal inputs over long temporal horizons and generalization across individuals with substantial response variability. We introduce a multimodal sequence-to-sequence Transformer with a hybrid cross-subject parameterization that predicts cortex-wide parcel-wise fMRI time series autoregressively from visual, audio, language, and vision--language representations. We evaluate the approach on data from the Courtois NeuroMod project, where four deeply-sampled participants viewed six seasons of Friends and four feature-length films during fMRI. Sequence-to-sequence temporal modeling yields consistent improvements over single-frame prediction across cortical networks, with gains extending to novel stimuli. A hybrid architecture that pairs a shared stimulus encoder with lightweight subject-specific decoder components outperforms both fully shared and fully individual models, indicating complementary advantages of learning shared stimulus representations across subjects and fitting individual neural readouts. Finally, we show that in data-scarce settings, hybrid models can be personalized to new individuals with limited fMRI data, demonstrating that multi-subject pretraining serves as a strong inductive prior for building individual-specific encoding models. Together, these results indicate that combining multimodal sequence modeling with a hybrid cross-subject architecture offers a scalable framework for personalized brain encoding under naturalistic conditions.
Qianyi He, Monica D. Rosenberg, Yuan Chang Leong
Data Science Institute University of Chicago, USA · Department of Psychology, Neuroscience Institute University of Chicago, USA
Foundation models pre-trained on large-scale fMRI datasets have shown strong downstream performance, but at substantial data and computation cost. To investigate how much fMRI-specific pre-training is actually needed for such performance, we introduce FReD, which derives fMRI representations from a frozen Deep Compression AutoEncoder (DCAE) pre-trained exclusively on natural images and pairs them with a task specific readout. For trait prediction, FReD summarizes frame-wise representations by their temporal mean and log-standard deviation and applies linear probing, with late fusion across two normalization schemes. For state prediction, it represents each frame as a single token and models temporal dependencies with a shallow Transformer. Across four resting-state datasets spanning six trait-prediction targets, linear probes on frozen DCAE features generally outperform those on fMRI foundation model representations and remain competitive with fully fine-tuned fMRI foundation models. On three task-fMRI state-prediction tasks, a temporal readout on DCAE features performs comparably to the strongest foundation models evaluated. A Gaussian injection analysis further shows that localized signal changes are recovered more accurately from the frozen DCAE features than from the evaluated foundation-model representations. Together, these results show that strong performance on current fMRI benchmarks is possible without fMRI-specific representation pre-training, making frozen natural-image features as a useful baseline for assessing its added value.
Juhyeon Park, Yeonwoo Kim, Peter Yongho Kim +5
IPAI, Seoul National University · Microsoft Research · ECE, Seoul National University +1