Meet Dr. Franck Ramus — a cognitive scientist and Senior Research Scientist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), based at the Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique at ENS-PSL in Paris, France.

Dr. Ramus leads the Cognitive Development and Pathology team, where his research examines why children differ in cognitive development and school learning. His work looks at areas including language, literacy, numeracy, and developmental dyslexia, as well as the cognitive and brain processes involved and the roles of genetic and environmental factors.

Developmental dyslexia has been a major focus of his research. His work has explored how dyslexia is defined, which difficulties are most closely associated with it, and how findings from genetics and brain imaging should be interpreted. His team also uses large birth cohorts and educational datasets to study broader differences in learning and cognitive development.

Alongside his research, Dr. Ramus has been active in bringing cognitive science into education and public discussion. He created the Psychology for Teachers online course, which draws on research about memory, behavior, motivation, and metacognition. In 2022, he received the Cognitive Science Society’s Jeffrey L. Elman Prize for Scientific Achievement and Community Building, recognizing both his research and his contribution to sharing cognitive science more widely.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Ramus discusses what the term dyslexia can and cannot tell us, how brain and genetic findings should be interpreted, why different cognitive skills can contribute to learning in different ways, and what can be lost when research is turned into simple rules about how people learn.

Q: A 2025 expert panel you were part of reached a new consensus definition of dyslexia. Why has it been so difficult to agree on a definition, and what should people understand about what the word “dyslexia” does and does not tell us?

Dr. Ramus: One might think that defining a disorder is just a scientific matter: by observing the characteristics of people who have the disorder, and how they qualitatively differ from those of the rest of population, one can identify the defining features of the disorder. But this approach is circular: you need a definition of the disorder before you can study the people affected. If you try and avoid this circularity, by studying the distribution of health traits in the population, you can observe continuous variations of these traits, but no discontinuity that would separate healthy people from those with a disorder. This also applies when you observe the distribution of reading ability among schoolchildren: there is no obvious cluster that would allow the identification of a subset who would deserve a dyslexia diagnosis.

The idea that diseases and disorders exist in nature prior to our definition is an illusion. Definitions of disorders and their diagnostic criteria have to be made up. Not in an arbitrary way, but with the aim to identify individuals who have certain problems that seem similar and that are sufficiently severe to require help. Diagnostic categories and criteria have to be adjusted in order to be maximally useful, to include all the people with a similar health problem, but without wasting limited resources on people who can do without or who have different problems. This is why such a difficult exercise must be repeated regularly, in order to take new scientific evidence into account, and is best accomplished by a panel of professionals of various disciplines and stakeholders in order to try and reach a consensus. The panel you mentioned has done this for dyslexia in 2025, but this is the general approach for all the conditions that are listed in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases.

Q: Some research has emphasized looking at abilities that remain unaffected in dyslexia, alongside the areas where difficulties appear. Why can that be important for understanding what dyslexia actually involves?

Dr. Ramus: Like most cognitive disorders, dyslexia involves difficulties in a specific cognitive domain: in this case, reading and the underlying cognitive skills (e.g., the ability to distinguish speech sounds and associate them with letters). But there can be many causes for reading problems. If a child has impairments across all cognitive abilities, they will struggle not only with reading but also with broader challenges, potentially qualifying for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Similarly, attention deficits, such as those seen in ADHD, may also lead to reading difficulties, though of a different nature, and will be accompanied by other symptoms. Therefore, before diagnosing dyslexia, it is important to test a child’s other cognitive abilities and behavioral symptoms, and to ensure that their reading impairment is not better explained by intellectual disability or by ADHD. This is called differential diagnosis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22559749/

Q: A review you led found that many reported brain differences in dyslexia had not been replicated consistently, especially across smaller studies. When we hear that researchers have found a particular “brain difference” linked to dyslexia, how cautious should we be?

Dr. Ramus: When one hears of a brain difference in dyslexia or in any other disorder, there are three cautionary steps to consider:

First, how reliable is this result? Has it been found in a single study, in a small population? Or has it been replicated across several studies and in a large population? Results in small studies are often not reliable and may be contradicted by later studies. Before trusting any particular result, it is wiser to wait for multiple replications across studies, including some with large samples of the population.

Second, such results are only true “on average”: they stem from statistical comparisons between groups of dyslexic individuals and groups of typical readers. They may reveal general insights about dyslexia, but they do not necessarily apply to every individual case.

Third, these differences are always small and essentially undetectable at the individual level. If you randomly select a single brain scan, it is impossible to determine with any reasonable confidence whether it belongs to a person with or without dyslexia. The implication is clear: diagnosing dyslexia based on brain scans is not possible, and it likely never will be.

Q: Dyslexia is often described as heritable. What does that actually mean, and how is that different from saying that genes determine how well someone will learn to read?

Dr. Ramus: When one says that dyslexia is about 50% heritable, it means that individual differences in the predisposition to dyslexia are due to 50% genetic differences, and 50% environmental differences. So reading ability and disability are determined in about equal shares by genes and by environmental factors. We can’t change a person’s genes, but we can modify their environment by prevention, education, remediation, or adaptation, and therefore change their outcomes.

Q: One study followed children from preschool to middle school and found that early language skills were linked with later multiplication, while visuospatial skills were linked with addition and subtraction. Why might different kinds of maths rely on different cognitive skills?

Dr. Ramus: Addition and subtraction of numbers that are relatively close are intuitive processes. For example, to solve 8 - 5, you might not know the answer by heart, but you can visualize the numbers on a mental number line (like a ruler), observe the distance between them, and deduce that the difference is 3. There are several ways to perform addition and subtraction mentally, but they typically involve visuospatial skills.

In contrast, multiplying 8 by 5 cannot be done as intuitively—you could visualize an 8 by 5 grid, but counting all the individual units would be impractical. This is why we memorize multiplication tables. Once learned, we retrieve the results directly from our verbal long-term memory. Thus, verbal skills play a key role in both learning multiplication tables and fluently recalling them.

This was already well-known, but our study added the developmental explanation of individual differences in arithmetic fluency: children who, around 5 years of age, have good visuospatial skills will later tend to be good at addition/subtraction. The same prediction holds for language skills and multiplication.

Q: A 2026 meta-analysis you co-authored found no overall learning advantage for immediate over delayed feedback in computer-assisted learning. What does that tell us about the idea that faster feedback is always better?

Dr. Ramus: There are different types of feedback. One type is behavioral feedback, which is used to modulate behavior. Adults commonly use this with children—praising good behavior to reinforce it or reprimanding undesirable behavior to reduce its occurrence. This approach works not only with children but also with adults and across all animal species. Research shows that behavioral feedback is most effective when delivered immediately, within seconds of the target behavior.

Another type of feedback is informative feedback, which enhances learning in educational settings. For example, when a student answers a question, they need to know whether their answer is correct or not, to either reinforce or correct the memory. Studies on informative feedback over the decades have yielded mixed results: some suggested delayed feedback improves memory retention, while others did not. Our meta-analysis did not find a global difference between immediate and delayed feedback, but found some hints that it depended on the learning context. It cautiously suggested that delayed feedback may be advantageous when trying to memorize text, but not when trying to acquire skills (e.g., by doing exercises).

Q: Through projects such as the Psychology for Teachers course, you have helped bring cognitive science into education and wider public discussion. When a finding is turned into a simple rule about how people learn, what tends to be lost?

Dr. Ramus: Results from psychological research do not always translate directly into teaching recommendations, but some findings deserve wider recognition among educators. For example, research has firmly established that the most effective way to memorize information is through active retrieval—such as reciting, taking tests, or engaging in exercises related to the material. This method is far more effective than passive learning, like simply listening or reading.

Teachers should consider how to apply this insight to improve their students' learning. For instance, they could design activities that require students to retrieve all the content they need to remember. They might also recognize that evaluations can serve as learning tools and structure them accordingly. Additionally, this knowledge is valuable for students themselves, as it empowers them to revise their lessons and learn independently. Therefore, teaching "how to learn" strategies should be incorporated into primary education.

Q: In 2022, you received the Cognitive Science Society’s Jeffrey L. Elman Prize for Scientific Achievement and Community Building. Looking across the different parts of your career, is there a piece of research or a project that especially reflects what you hope cognitive science can contribute beyond academia?

Dr. Ramus: My primary motivation in doing cognitive science is to explore profound and fascinating questions, such as: What factors make us all similar as members of a single species, while also making each of us unique? This is a modern take on the nature-nurture debate.

Like many researchers, I also strive to make my work directly beneficial to society. Cognitive science offers many opportunities for this. For example, my PhD research on early language development provided insights for parents wondering what kind of environment best supports language acquisition. Beyond the obvious advice to talk to their babies, some parents worried that a bilingual environment might be harmful. Our work helped dispel that concern. My research on dyslexia and developmental language disorders had obvious implications on the definition, diagnosis, and remediation of these conditions, and indeed influenced the consensus definition we produced in 2025. More recently, faced with the poor performance of the French educational system, I have tried to make my research more relevant to education. This includes investigating the most effective methods for memory retention, and engaging in teacher training, such as creating the MOOC you mentioned.

Thank you, Dr. Ramus!

Links:

• Follow Dr. Franck Ramus on @franckramus.bsky.social, Facebook, Instagram, or Linkedln.

• Linktr.ee.

Share

Most of the time, we move around without actually thinking about our balance. We can stand up, turn, or walk across a familiar room without paying much attention to how we are staying upright. However, when we close our eyes and try to take even one step, we notice the difference right away. We slow down, feeling less confident in where our next foot wi…

Read more

Meet Dr. Minna Huotilainen — Professor of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland, whose work explores learning, memory, attention, music, and language through neuroscience and cognitive science.

Dr. Huotilainen studies learning using brain-research methods, including EEG and MEG, and is involved in the University of Helsinki’s Brain, Music and Learning research community and leads the education team at the National Centre of Excellence in Music, Mind, Body and Brain. Her research has examined how the brain responds to sound and learning across different stages of life, including early memory, children’s language development, attention, and the connections between music and learning.

Her work has also looked at what brain and physiological measurements can add to behavioral research, and where those measures need to be interpreted carefully. Alongside her research, Dr. Huotilainen has been active in bringing neuroscience to wider audiences. She received the Sokrates Prize in 2016 for communicating brain research publicly and was awarded the City of Helsinki Scientific Award in 2025 for her scientific work on memory and learning.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Huotilainen discusses what brain measurements can and cannot tell us about learning, how early memory may begin, what research really shows about music and language development, how attention is affected by a busy digital environment, and why neuroscience findings can be more complicated than they first appear.

Q: A large amount of learning research looks at what people remember or how they perform on a task. What can methods such as EEG or MEG add to that picture, and what do they not tell us on their own?

Dr. Huotilainen: EEG and MEG can pinpoint the brain processes that are related to processes like perception, attention, memory consolidation and retrieval. It allows us to study how those processes may differ in individuals with specific learning problems. In many cases, EEG and MEG data are strongly correlated to memory or task performance, but not always exactly. On their own, EEG and MEG can only tell us about the brain processes of learning, but not exactly how that is translated into behaviour.

Q: One study you co-authored found that babies who repeatedly heard the same melody before birth responded differently to it after birth, with effects still seen at four months. What did this study show about how early memory can begin, and what does “remembering” mean at such an early age?

Dr. Huotilainen: I think that the study shows how malleable and plastic the human brain is already during its very early development, even before birth. It also highlights the close connection between perception and learning, since the auditory cortical areas of the fetuses are only learning to *perceive* sounds at the same time as the same areas are memorizing melodies. It shows how intertwined early experiences are – “remembering” is actually perceiving. Infants cannot “remember” the melodies in the same manner as an adult would after listening to the same song dozens of times. They are pre-verbal, i.e., they possess no skill of verbalizing their memories.

Q: In another study, children attending music playschool showed stronger development in phoneme processing and vocabulary, but not in non-verbal reasoning or inhibition. What does a result like that tell us about the idea that music simply makes children “smarter”?

Dr. Huotilainen: There is plenty of evidence showing that children’s performance in attention and inhibition tasks as well as several other tasks increases when they take part in musical interventions designed by researchers. I’m not sure if “smarter” is a good word to use here – I believe we are witnessing a situation where children are more capable of showing their skills after learning inhibition control in the music lessons.

Our study was not a musical intervention designed by researchers, but we studied the effects of a musical play school happening in the context of early childhood education. It was only 45 minutes per week, and naturally some children didn’t attend every week due to illnesses, etc. So the amount of intervention was very small compared to interventions that researchers usually use. The fact that we observed stronger development in phoneme processing and vocabulary is directly related to the development of the auditory system: singing and learning new songs can help the auditory cortex disentangle phonemes better, which also helps in learning new words. The fact that our test results in reasoning and inhibition didn’t show a statistically significant difference between the two groups does not prove that the music intervention wouldn’t have developed their reasoning or inhibition – it simply shows that there is no significant effect with only 45 minutes of intervention per week.

Q: A recent study looked at students’ math mindsets, the kinds of tasks they chose, and their physiological responses to feedback. Those measures did not always point in the same direction. What can researchers learn when what someone says, chooses, and physically responds to do not line up neatly?

Dr. Huotilainen: Human behaviour is very complex, and it is even more complex in groups like school classes. Children are very prone to give answers that they assume that adults are expecting. In childhood, reflecting your own behaviour and the reasons behind it is not yet fully developed. If the teacher has been talking a lot about growth mindset in math lessons, children might answer according to what they have heard the teacher say – regardless of what they themselves actually feel. It should also be noted that many of the physiological responses reflect arousal, both positive and negative. Of course we assume that the arousal after receiving negative feedback is negative, but it is not necessarily the case for each child. I think that it is truly an opportunity to learn when the participants answers, actions and physiology all tell a different story. Combining several measures in one study may make the interpretation more complex, but at least you can see more viewpoints to the same situation. We are still in the process of developing optimal protocols to study the physiological responses related to mindsets.

Q: In a 2024 talk, you focused on the brain in today’s digital information environment and the neuroscience of learning and attention. For students, what is important to understand about repeatedly shifting attention between schoolwork and digital distractions?

Dr. Huotilainen: Digital distractions may rewire our brain to be addicted to the distractions. We learn to wait for a possible distraction all the time. The algorithms learn from our behaviour and figure out the strongest possible distractors for us. It is very tiring for the brain to try to do work that requires strong focus while simultaneously waiting for and reacting to digital distractions. It is good to reflect one’s behaviour and also use objective measures like screen time, how many times you pick your phone up, and which apps you use most frequently.

Q: Music, memory, attention, and language have all been part of your research over the years. Is there a finding that has especially shaped or changed the way you think about learning?

Dr. Huotilainen: I am fascinated about the social nature of music. Ever since the first reports of the mirror neurons by the Rizzolatti team, I have viewed music making as the most optimal form of communication and cohesion in group settings. Infants regard people more trustworthy if they bounce in synchrony. Children have more collaborative and helpful behaviour after musical activities. I think that we are very far from understanding all the possibilities that music could offer us in this setting.

Q: In 2025, you received the City of Helsinki Scientific Award, and your public communication has also been recognized with awards including the Sokrates Prize. What is most difficult about bringing neuroscience to people outside the field without losing the uncertainty behind the findings?

Dr. Huotilainen: I think that people deserve to know about scientific findings, their methodologies, uncertainties, and progress. Some of our work is funded with taxpayer’s money, so we also want to give back. Working with lay persons, children and their families also enhances the quality of our work, since they give us insight into their lives, their difficulties and also solutions that they have found. I feel that it is very important to work with the public. “Neurohype” and click journalism make it harder, though, since science seldom brings news, but it is rather a slow, self-correcting process. I like to use simple studies as examples when discussing research with the public. A study with an intervention group and a control group is quite understandable for most people, if the results are clear.

Thank you, Dr. Huotilainen

Links:

• Follow Dr. Minna Huotilainen

  • on Instagram and TikTok @minnahuoti

  • on Facebook

Share

Meet Dr. Melanie Penner — a developmental pediatrician and autism care researcher at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital in Toronto, Canada, whose work focuses on improving how diagnosis and support reach children and families.

Dr. Penner is a developmental pediatrician and senior clinician scientist at Holland Bloorview. She is also an Associate Professor in the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Toronto and holds the Bloorview Children’s Hospital Foundation Research Chair in Developmental Pediatrics.

Her research focuses on autism service delivery, including how new care models can improve access to diagnosis and support. A major part of her work looks at building community diagnostic capacity such that more children and families can receive timely assessment and care closer to home. Dr. Penner also leads ECHO Ontario Autism, a program that supports community providers through virtual learning, case discussion, and specialist guidance. Her broader research interests include learning health systems, measurement-based care, and neuroaffirming approaches in developmental care.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Penner discusses autism diagnosis access, community-based care, neuroaffirming developmental care, and the systems that shape how autistic children and families receive support.

Q: Much of your work focuses on autism service delivery, including how diagnosis and care actually reach children and families. What first made diagnosis access an important research focus for you?

Dr. Penner: As an aspiring health services researcher, it felt most important to me to start with the aspects of the system that I knew and in which I was a direct participant. I started my research when I was a clinical trainee (a developmental paediatrics subspecialty resident), and perhaps I was wary of telling other professions how to do things when my own field still had work to do!

In my training, I saw a patient with very clear features of autism and I started wondering whether the physician who referred them for a developmental paediatric assessment knew that the child was autistic. This felt very inefficient given that our wait time was about 18 months at that point. This started me down a path of asking who could diagnose autism. I was surprised to learn that there had been very little research on this question.

It’s my hope that my research can help autistic children and their families access a timely autism diagnostic evaluation, closer to home. This will hopefully help them to be able to access important therapies that are so important for learning in the early years of life.

Q: Autism diagnosis is sometimes discussed as just acquiring a label, but in many systems, it can shape access to support and services. What do you wish more people understood about this connection?

Dr. Penner: An autism diagnosis serves multiple purposes. I think one of the most important is to help families and professionals understand a child through a more helpful lens. As children age, an autism diagnosis can become an important part of both their identity and their community. And yes, an autism diagnosis also often unlocks access to supports and services. There are pros and cons to this. We do have therapy programs for autistic children that have been extensively studied, and it makes sense to provide these to children with an autism diagnosis. However, we don’t want to delay access to therapies while children wait for a diagnostic evaluation, and for this reason, many places have started making therapies available while children are on assessment wait lists. There is also a lot of emphasis on building systems that provide services based on a child’s needs, not on a diagnosis. This approach recognizes that neurodevelopmental diagnoses, of which autism is one, vary considerably within each diagnosis and have a lot of overlapping features across diagnoses. We have a lot of work to redesign our systems to reflect needs, rather than diagnoses. Ontario’s Extensive Needs Service is an example where we have tried to do this.

Q: Some of your research has looked at whether general pediatricians can accurately diagnose autism in certain cases. Where can community-based diagnosis help, and when does specialist assessment still remain important?

Dr. Penner: Community-based clinicians, such as general paediatricians, can be an important part of building our diagnostic capacity and reducing wait times. My research shows that this group can accurately diagnose children with clear features of autism, particularly when they feel confident. Ruling out autism is more challenging, particularly because features can be subtle and may not be fully evident until later ages. These are the types of cases that are likely best assessed by a subspecialist, such as a developmental paediatrician. To me, an optimally functioning system is one where the clear-cut cases are seen in the community and more complex cases can be seen in tertiary care centres by subspecialists like me. Importantly, all children and families need a family-centred process where they feel heard and engaged throughout the assessment.

Q: After a diagnosis is made, families still require clear next steps. What helps make the diagnostic process more useful and streamlined, and less disconnected from support?

Dr. Penner: One of my earliest studies involved interviewing general paediatricians about why they did or didn’t diagnose autism in their community-based clinics. They told me that even in cases where they knew the child was autistic, they would refer to a subspecialist because they didn’t feel confident telling the family the autism diagnosis or connecting them to resources. These results led to an internal policy change at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, where I work – we started allowing community-based clinicians to refer families to our post-diagnostic counselling if they had received their diagnosis in the community. We have an ‘Autism Diagnostic Boot Camp’ where we specifically practice telling a family the diagnosis and provide information about relevant resources. Finally, we have also tried to address this by keeping an up-to-date list of post-diagnostic resources available on our website.

Q: ECHO Ontario Autism works with community providers on autism diagnosis and care, including care closer to home for rural, remote, or underserved communities. What can an ongoing learning model offer that a one-time training session most likely cannot?

Dr. Penner: ECHO Ontario Autism is a community of practice devoted to improving access to high-quality community-based autism care. I think so much of the magic happens in ‘community’. If you are a general paediatrician or family doctor, hearing about the care provided from your community-based peers is so much more effective than me trying to tell you to do something differently. The ECHO ongoing learning model helps us to develop relationships with these healthcare providers. We have an expert ‘Hub’ team that includes lived experience advisors (parents of autistic children and autistic advocates). Over time, I really see the relationships grow between our lived experience advisors and community clinician participants. This provides an invaluable opportunity for them to hear about the care they provide from the groups that it impacts most.

Q: One area in your current research is neuroaffirming developmental care. For readers who may be newer to that term, what does a neuroaffirming approach try to protect or center? Why is this so important?

Dr. Penner: Neurodiversity is a concept that has been active in disability community spaces for decades, long before it came to wider public attention. Neurodiversity refers to the variety of brains in our collective humanity and recognizes that diversity in these ‘neurotypes’ has been beneficial for our human survival and evolution. Within this, neurodivergence refers to ‘neurotypes’ that are considered outside of the norm.

Neuroaffirming care seeks to support and affirm neurodivergence. My favourite framework for this comes from Sonny Jane Wise, who lists the following principles of neuroaffirming care: intersectionality, respecting autonomy, presuming competence, validating differences, rejecting neuronormativity, reframing expectations, promoting self advocacy, prioritizing lived experience, nurturing positive self identity, adapting systems and environments, and honoring all forms of communication.

Q: When autism research is shared in student or public-facing articles, what should communicators be careful not to flatten or oversimplify?

Dr. Penner: I love this question. I have a personal rule that I never make sweeping statements like “all autistic people…”, or “autistic people can’t…”. Autism varies so much from person to person. For this reason, we need to be careful generalizing one autistic person’s experiences or perspectives to the broader population of autistic people. As we seek to better represent the experiences of autistic people, we need to be mindful that some autistic people have been systematically under-represented: racialized people, girls/women/gender-diverse individuals, non-speaking autistics, and those with co-occurring intellectual disabilities.

Autistic people experience joy, passions, frustrations, and challenges. Historically, representations focused exclusively on negative aspects, leading to considerable stigma. We also need to be cautious with representations that paint an overly rosy picture of autism without acknowledging the challenges, particularly challenges posed by ableist systems. I think there is room in our autism representations to capture a more holistic view of what it means to be autistic.

Q: You have been recognized for leadership in autism care research. What part of diagnosis and service systems feels most important to continue improving?

Dr. Penner: In Canada, we still have inequitable access to autism diagnostic assessments and there is so much work to be done. I am currently working to broaden our community of practice across Canada to provide practical supports for clinicians who want to do right by their patients and families. I am particularly interested in how we can co-design solutions with rural and remote communities to improve their access to meaningful, culturally-affirming assessment and supports. More broadly, we need to redesign our systems with the recognition that autism is a common condition. One-size-fits-all autism therapies will not meet the needs for this population, and we need more research on how to personalize our therapy approaches while also prioritizing access and sustainability.

Thank you, Dr. Penner!

Links:

• Website: https://hollandbloorview.ca/research-education/bloorview-research-institute/research-centres-labs/autism-research-centre/autism-research-centre-our-team/dr-melanie-penners-lab

• Follow Dr. Melanie Penner on Linkedln.

Share

For another recent NeuroKnow workshop that I organized, I presented a brain health session to a larger group of residents at a senior living community. The session focused on practical ways older adults can support their brain health in daily life, using examples and activities that were relevant to their routines.

The group included residents with different levels of independence and engaged in different ways throughout the presentation. Some asked questions, others listened closely, and toward the end, several residents began talking about how they might use the information themselves.

One resident said they had learned a lot and wanted to try some of the ideas from the session. Another mentioned that making certain changes could be difficult for them personally, but that they were still willing to try. One person who had been having trouble sleeping said they planned to speak with their caregiver about what they could do to improve their sleep.

I appreciated hearing these kinds of responses, as they showed that people were connecting the information to their own routines and concerns. The presentation had given them specific things to think about after the session ended.

The written feedback was positive as well. One participant mentioned the memory tools, while others described the presentation as informative, organized, and easy to follow. Several also commented on the slideshow and the way the information was presented.

By the end, some residents were already discussing habits they wanted to try or questions they wanted to bring up with the people helping to care for them. I enjoyed seeing the conversation move in that direction — it made the session feel practical and gave me another reason to keep bringing brain health education into older adult communities.

Meet Dr. Emma Yhnell — a neuroscientist, educator, and science communicator at Cardiff University, Wales, UK, whose work connects brain research, public engagement, and inclusive science education.

Dr. Yhnell is a Reader in Neuroscience at Cardiff University and Associate Dean for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Biomedical and Life Sciences. Her current work spans bioscience education, science communication, public engagement, and efforts to make science feel more open and accessible to diverse audiences.

Earlier in her career, Dr. Yhnell’s research focused on Huntington’s disease and computerised cognitive training, including CogTrainHD, a study exploring the feasibility of home-based cognitive training for people affected by Huntington’s disease. She has also been recognised for her teaching and public engagement, receiving prestigious awards including the Society for Neuroscience Science Educator Award and the British Neuroscience Association Public Engagement Award. She is a National Teaching Fellow and Principal Fellow of Advance HE.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Yhnell discusses Huntington’s disease, brain-training, public engagement, inclusive neuroscience education, and how everyone, but particularly students can approach brain science with curiosity and care.

Q: Earlier in your career, your research focused on Huntington’s disease and computerized cognitive training. How did working on a complex brain disorder shape the way you think about explaining neuroscience to people outside the field?

Dr. Yhnell: My work with people and families living with Huntington's disease was pivotal. It really made me consider who experts are and catalysed my career in science communication. I was struck how many people rightly wanted information and importantly, access to information but often, that information was written in language which was inaccessible. I am also a people person and it made me appreciate that I really enjoy working with people in a range of contexts, from research to education and public engagement.

Q: CogTrainHD tested home-based computerized cognitive training for people affected by Huntington’s disease. What did the study show about the gap between a promising neuroscience idea and something people can realistically use?

Dr. Yhnell: My research work in Huntington's disease was a relatively long time ago now, but there is no doubt that it shaped my career. CogTrainHD was a clinical trial which was a feasibility study, it was part of an independent Fellowship funding by the Welsh Government through Health and Care Research Wales and a 3 year project. The study showed that there was a real polarisation between people who wanted to use computers and those who didn't. It highlighted a range of access and digital literacy themes as well as practical and logistical challenges associated with technology, WiFi connection, using a digital device etc.

Q: People of all ages see claims about “brain training,” from apps and games to online advice. What is a careful way to think about these claims without dismissing the whole idea or trusting it too quickly?

Dr. Yhnell: For me, I think we need to consider if there are any potential transfer effects into daily life. As long as completed in moderation, there are unlikely to be any harms. But, claims of transfer effects and benefits into daily life are more challenging. For example, you might be really good at number puzzles, but will that help with the mental maths of adding up shopping as you go around a supermarket. Will word games and puzzles help with your ability to speak to others. At the moment, the evidence is very thin, but there is also unlikely to be any harm if done in moderation. After all, some people use these sorts of games to destress.

Q: In teaching and public engagement, what kinds of questions from students tend to spark the best conversations about the brain?

Dr. Yhnell: Students and school children ask some of the best questions. I am often asked about brain injury or disease - sometimes this is from lived experiences or concern for others. I get asked about memory a lot. We also talk about the brains of different creatures and how they can differ in terms of structure and function. Learning about the brain at the level of the whole organism vs cellular level is also really interesting.

Q: Some students feel like science belongs to individuals who already know the “right words.” What helps make neuroscience feel more open to students who are interested but still new to it?

Dr. Yhnell: Access to science and particularly neuroscience can be challenging. Sometimes people think it is only for clever people and not for them. Ultimately, we all have a brain and I think we should all be able to understand it. The key for me is encouraging others to ask questions and to be curious. Not everyone knows all of the answers, nobody can. It isn't just about knowing the right words either, it is about asking questions and continually learning, there is still so much that we don't know about the brain for example.

Q: When complicated brain science is shared with the public, where do explanations usually lose accuracy: by becoming too technical, too simple, or too absolute?

Dr. Yhnell: As scientists, we receive a lot of training in the technical world, but comparatively little (if any) in how to communicate it. Scientists also speak in very specialist language, which is fine if you are talking to specialists but it may not translate well to non-specialist audiences. There is a fine balance here. You want to adapt your communication style to your audience. I don't think there is any such thing as "dumbing down", I think that language is unhelpful. Instead, as scientists we need to appropriately adapt to our audience.

Q: You have been recognized for both teaching and public engagement, including the Society for Neuroscience Science Educator Award. What kinds of neuroscience education do you feel most impactful now?

Dr. Yhnell: I feel really passionately that future generations have access to education and engagement. I have been so fortunate to have benefited from excellent teaching and education, so I feel a responsibility to carry that on and inspired others. The important thing for me is that learning should always be fun, and that doesn't make it any less valuable.

Q: What got you interested in Neuroscience?

Dr. Yhnell: My neuroscience story is perhaps a little unusual as I started off in Biochemistry and then switched to Neuroscience for my Ph. D.. I suppose I had always been interested in Neuroscience but hadn't really studied it much, particularly at school. People often ask me about this switch and although it was tough, I am glad I did it. Sometimes we pigeon hole ourselves into fields or disciplines but actually we have plenty of transferable skills to a whole range of other fields.

Thank you, Dr. Yhnell!

Links:

• Website: https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/yhnelle; Wikipedia

• Follow Dr. Emma Yhnell on Linkedln.

NK Instagram

Migraine is a neurological condition that can involve much more than head pain. During an attack, someone may feel tired, have trouble focusing, notice neck discomfort, become more sensitive to light or sound, or sometimes experience aura (visual disturbances, tingling, speech issues, and more). Some of these symptoms can start before the headache, and others may stick around after the pain begins to fade.

The timing can also be different from one attack to another. Symptoms may overlap or show up at different points. Even things often described as “triggers” may sometimes be connected to changes that have already begun.

Before the Pain Starts

Some migraine attacks come with early signs before the headache begins. This period is often called the prodrome, and it can start hours or sometimes even days earlier. In the 2025 PRODROME study, commonly tracked symptoms included sensitivity to light, tiredness, neck pain, trouble concentrating, dizziness, irritability, and frequent yawning. Some of these symptoms may be mild, while others can feel stronger.

The signs can also be different from person to person. Someone may notice a few clear changes before an attack, while someone else may not notice much at all. Even for the same person, the symptoms can change from one migraine to another. The study mainly featured adults who already noticed a fairly predictable prodrome, so the results may not be applicable to everyone with migraine.

What Counts as a Trigger?

“Triggers” are often linked with migraine attacks. Bright lights, loud noises, poor sleep, stress, and certain foods are some things people may notice before a migraine. Research suggests the connection is not always simple, however. In the 2025 REFORM study of 632 adults, some reported triggers were actually similar to symptoms that appeared before the headache. Bright lights were linked with early light sensitivity, loud noise with sound sensitivity, and sleep problems with tiredness.

Food cravings can be confusing too. Someone might crave chocolate before a headache and later believe the chocolate somehow caused the migraine. In some cases, the craving may have already been part of the early migraine phase.

The REFORM study was dependent on people remembering their usual experiences, and since finer details in memory can often be unreliable, the study could not show exactly what came first during each attack. For some, a trigger may play a role. For others, that same experience may be an early symptom. Trigger patterns can still be useful for identification, but they do not always tell us what caused the attack.

The basic difference:
Triggers may help bring on a migraine attack. Examples are changes in weather changes, skipping meals or fasting, or dehydration.

Prodrome symptoms are early signs that the migraine may already be starting. These can include food cravings, mood changes, tiredness, or light sensitivity.

Thus, a trigger may help set an attack off, while a prodrome symptom may be a sign that the attack has already begun.

Sensory Changes During Migraine

Migraine can cause every day sights, sounds, smells, and even touches to feel much more intense. In a 2021 study of 187 adults with migraine, more than 3/4 of participants experienced sensitivity to light or sound, and more than half experienced sensitivity to smell. These sensitivities often happened at the same time.

Some people also experience cutaneous allodynia, where regular touch on the skin can feel painful. Research has shown that migraine can affect how the brain handles sensory information, although scientists are still learning exactly why this happens. These sensitivities can appear before the headache, during it, and sometimes after the pain has faded. Because of that, several normal sensations can feel unusually strong during a migraine attack.

A Brief Note on Aura

Aura occurs with some migraine attacks and usually causes temporary changes that go away. Visual symptoms are the most common. Someone may see flashing lights, zigzag lines, or areas where part of their vision is missing. Aura can also cause numbness, pins and needles, or trouble with finding/saying the right words.

Aura is often described as happening before a headache, but its timing can overlap. In one study that tracked 861 migraine-with-aura attacks, the headache was already present during the aura 73% of the time. For many people, aura and headache can occur at the same time.

After the Headache Eases

Even after the headache starts to ease, some migraine symptoms can stick around. This recovery period is called the postdrome. In a three-month diary study by Giffin et al. (2016), tiredness was the most common symptom and appeared in 88% of the recorded postdromes. Trouble concentrating, neck stiffness, sensitivity to light or sound, and mild head discomfort were also reported.

Recovery did not require the same amount of time for every attack. Just over half of the recorded attacks returned to normal within six hours, and 93% did so within 24 hours. A few lasted longer. Recovery time also did not clearly depend on how strong the headache had been.

The study included participants who already experienced symptoms beyond head pain, so these numbers may not apply to everyone with migraine. Still, they show that it can take quite a bit of time to feel better after a headache.

When Migraine Changes Your Day

Migraine can affect the whole day, even after the worst of the headache has passed. Missing class, cancelling plans, or struggling to focus afterward can leave someone dealing with the effects for hours. In a 2023 study, young people with migraines and their caregivers described changes in school, daily activities, emotional well-being, feeling isolated, and support they received from others.

Migraines can also be difficult to plan around, as each attack may start, feel, or end differently. Even between attacks, someone may still be catching up on missed work, thinking about plans they had to cancel, or wondering if another migraine could interrupt the next day.

Migraine can affect much more than a headache. Some symptoms can start before the pain, continue during the attack, and stay around even after the headache starts to ease. Things like sensory sensitivity, aura, tiredness, and trouble focusing can all be part of it. Migraine can also interfere with school, plans, and everyday routines. Understanding the full picture can help explain why an attack may affect someone longer than the headache alone.

Leave a comment

Meet Dr. Susannah C. Walker — neuroscientist at Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom, whose work explores how the body and brain help shape social experience.

Dr. Walker is a Reader in Behavioural Neuroscience in the School of Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University and a Principal Research Fellow in the Faculty of Health, Innovation, Technology and Science. Her research focuses on affect, motivation, social bonds, and early-developing sensory systems such as touch and smell.

A major part of Dr. Walker’s work looks at somatosensory and social neuroscience, including how touch can carry social and emotional meaning rather than acting only as a physical signal from the skin. Her work also connects with broader questions about pain, wellbeing, and how body-based experiences are shaped by context.

Beyond the lab, Dr. Walker is Chair of the Liverpool Neuroscience Group and led the curation of Bring Your Own Brain-Liverpool, a public engagement program that brought neuroscience into public spaces across Liverpool through talks, demonstrations, workshops, and interactive events. The Bring Your Own Brain team received the British Neuroscience Association’s Public Engagement Prize in 2025 and Susannah received the Vice Chancellor’s award for Excellence in Public Engagement from her university the same year.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Walker discusses social and sensory neuroscience, why touch is more than just physical contact, and how public engagement can bring brain research into everyday spaces without losing the science behind it.

Q: Your LJMU profile describes an interest in social bonds, affect, motivation, and early-developing sensory systems such as touch and smell. How did sensory neuroscience and social neuroscience become connected in the questions you study?

Dr. Walker: During my PhD and post-doctoral research, I studied the brain mechanisms underlying motivation and translation of motivational drives into actions. After my post-doc, I spent several years working in industry for Unilever R&D, and this is where my interest in sensory systems stems from, as the research I was conducting here focused on understanding how the smell and feel of personal-care products (like shampoos and deodorants, for example) drive consumers’ choices and evaluations. When I returned to academia, it was natural to develop a research programme that combined my original PhD training with my newfound interest in sensory systems – the senses of touch and smell are the first to develop and help scaffold how we infants learn about our social world, hence my interest in social and somatosensory neuroscience began.

Q: Touch is easy to think of as simply physical contact with the skin. In affective touch research, why does touch mean more than a basic physical sensation?

Dr. Walker: It is true that the textbook view of the sense of touch relates to sensing the physical world - we have specialist receptors in our skin which support the identification of different textures, temperatures and pressures. As we move our fingers across a surface, for example, information from these various receptors is conducted rapidly via myelinated nerve fibres to the brain which integrates these inputs to generate precepts like softness, wetness, etc. However, missing from this textbook view is a relatively recently identified receptor type – named c-tactile afferents. These unmyelinated (thus slowly conducting) fibres respond best to gentle moving touch of between 1-10 cm per sec delivered at skin temperature, which people generally rate as pleasant. This is just the sort of touch that typifies a social tactile interaction and has been labelled affective touch to distinguish it from the classically recognised discriminative aspects of touch. It is hypothesised c-tactile afferents evolved in mammals to signal the rewarding value of social contact and thus play a key role in the formation of social bonds, particularly early in development.

Q: When people talk about touch and wellbeing, what is oversimplified most often?

Dr. Walker: I think it is important to acknowledge that context is key in our appraisal, and thus in the physiological and psychological benefits, of touch. If we study just the first stages of peripheral sensory processing, a receptor in the skin responds the same whether it is a person, a brush, or a robot arm (which we use frequently in our research) delivering the touch. But of course, in the real-world, touch from a stranger will be appraised very differently to the same touch from a loved one, both in terms of how their brain responds and their conscious appraisal of that touch. My group’s research combines neuroscientific and psychological research methods so we can consider both these bottom-up and top-down aspects of social touch.

Q: The LJMU somatosensory and social neuroscience area includes pain, touch, itch, and how pain is experienced and expressed. What is easy to misunderstand about pain when people think only about the body and not the context around it?

Dr. Walker: Like touch, pain experience has biological, psychological and social elements which collectively shape how it is experienced. Thus, to understand it fully, this complexity needs to be accounted for. In terms of a social context, pain experienced when social support is perceived to be available is appraised less negatively than when it is experienced alone. However, it also the case that feeling socially isolated or experiencing interpersonal conflict can exacerbate symptoms of pain. Chronic pain conditions, where pain persists beyond the expected time for healing, are a major public health concern, so we need to better understand the role social experiences play in order to provide better approaches to pain management and support recovery.

Q: Bring Your Own Brain brought neuroscience into public venues across Liverpool, including spaces outside normal academic settings and events for young people. What did that format allow students and public audiences to experience that a standard lecture most likely would not?

Dr. Walker: We wanted Bring Your Own Brain to reach audiences that a typical public lecture wouldn’t necessarily appeal to. By working with various partners, such as charities and museums, and taking our science to their audiences, we were able to reach a broad range of people of different ages and backgrounds with events specifically designed to engage them. Also, we worked hard to make all of our events engaging. For example, we had a lot of active participation including crafting activities, fun sensory games or interactive demonstrations of the research methods we use in our laboratories day to day.

Q: In public neuroscience, there is always a risk of making the science either too technical or too simple. What do you believe helps keep brain research clear without ignoring out the uncertainty?

Dr. Walker: I think neuroscience is appealing as it is a topic everyone can relate to, so we have a good starting point of shared experience. Also, many people have firsthand knowledge of mental illness and neurodegenerative conditions which means they are automatically engaged with the topic and hungry for answers. There are a lot of misinformation out there about the brain and brain health, so one of the approaches we took was to bust some commonly held misconceptions both by challenging them directly and by informing people through their hands on experiences.

Q: The Liverpool Neuroscience Group’s Bring Your Own Brain team received the BNA Public Engagement Prize 2025. Looking back at the program, what do you think made it more than just a series of science events?

Dr. Walker: The British Neuroscience Association hosts a public programme of events in the same city as its International Festival of Neuroscience in order to leave a legacy of their visit and to build a festival atmosphere. Through cohesive branding and cross-advertising, we were able to raise awareness at each event of future ones and thus we had quite a few people that came to several. Also, by preceding the conference, the programme was linked to something big happening in the city that non-scientists could feel they were part of. In designing each event, we were clear who we wanted to reach and what we wanted to achieve. Importantly, many of our events have had a life beyond Bring Your Own Brain, evolving to be part of the British Science Festival, British Science week and other local public engagement activities.

Thank you, Dr. Walker!

Links:

• Website: https://profiles.ljmu.ac.uk/6228-susannah-walker

• Follow Dr. Susannah Walker on Linkedln.

Share

The session covered movement, cognitive activity, nutrition, sleep, and social/emotional well-being. I focused on practical and adoptable ways these areas can fit into everyday life. I also changed some of the activities from my earlier presentations so they would connect better with the audience.

The setting was a little challenging due to background noise, so I made sure to project my voice throughout the presentation without a microphone. Several participants were engaged despite the sounds, and the feedback afterward helped me understand what they had taken away from the session.

One participant wrote that they especially appreciated learning what they could do to keep their brain active through movement and thinking. Another described the presentation as “very informative.” A staff member also said the information was useful and that the presentation had gone well despite the busy environment.

One comment remained with me after the session. As I was collecting the feedback forms, one resident told me, “I know 10–15 people who should have been here.” I took it as a sign that they felt the information would be useful to others too. I encouraged them to share what they had learned with others who were unable to attend.

Each presentation continues to help me see more clearly what works with an older audience and what I can improve for the next session.

NK Instagram

Meet Dr. Kim Hellemans — neuroscientist, educator, and science communicator at Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Dr. Hellemans is an Assistant Professor in Neuroscience and Associate Dean of Science at Carleton University. Her research focuses on the intersection of mental health, substance use, and academic outcomes among emerging adults, including work on cannabis use, social media use, graduate student mental health, and the experiences of gender and sexual minority students in higher education.

Through the Hellemans Lab, she studies stress, trauma, substance use, and mental health through an integrative neuroscience lens, bringing together biological, psychological, and social perspectives. Beyond the lab and classroom, she has created neuroscience animations on substance use and stigma, serves as faculty lead for Stigma Ends at CU, and co-hosts the award-winning podcast Minding the Brain. Her teaching has also been recognized with several awards, including the OCUFA Provincial Teaching Award.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Hellemans discusses student well being, substance use, stigma, social media, and how neuroscience can help explain complicated brain-health topics with more accuracy, context, and care.

Q: Public discussions of mental health and substance use often range between “it’s brain chemistry” and “it’s personal choice.” In studying mental health, substance use, and academic outcomes among emerging adults, what is overlooked when the conversation remains that simple?

Dr. Hellemans: What gets overlooked is the complexity of what is actually going on in someone’s life. I think both of those explanations ( i.e., “it’s brain chemistry” or “it’s personal choice”) capture a small piece of the picture, but neither is sufficient on its own. Mental health and substance use are shaped by biology, absolutely, but they are also shaped by stress, relationships, financial insecurity, sleep, trauma, loneliness, identity development, access to support, and the broader sociocultural environment. Emerging adulthood is a period when the brain is still developing, especially the systems involved in emotion regulation, decision-making, reward, and coping. At the same time, students are often navigating major transitions with fewer supports than they had before.

So when we reduce the conversation to either chemistry or choice, we miss the way those pieces interact. A student may be using cannabis, alcohol, social media, gambling, or other behaviours to cope with anxiety or overwhelm, but that does not mean they are simply making a “bad choice.” It also does not mean their brain chemistry is determining everything. It means we need to ask better questions: what is the behaviour doing for them? What stressors are they managing? What supports do they have? What alternatives feel available to them? And how do shame, stigma, or fear of judgment keep them from asking for help? (Especially nowadays, with young men.)

I think a more useful conversation is one that holds both agency and context at the same time. Young people are not passive victims of their brains, but they are also not making choices in a vacuum. If we want better mental health and academic outcomes, we need to understand the whole ecology around the student: not just symptoms, not just substances/behaviours, and not just grades.

Q: Some of the current research connected to the lab looks at life stress, cannabis use, social media, mental health, and academic outcomes in university students. In real student life, how do these pieces tend to build on each other in ways people underestimate?

Dr. Hellemans: What people often underestimate is how quickly these things can become interconnected. In real student life, stress, sleep, substance use, social media, mental health, and academics do not happen in separate boxes. A student might start the term feeling overwhelmed, then sleep less, fall behind, feel more anxious, and use cannabis or scrolling as a way to cope with their intense emotions. In the short term, that may work: it gives some relief, distraction, or a sense of control. But over time, it can interfere with sleep quality, motivation, attention, mood, and the ability to catch up academically. Then falling behind creates more stress, which makes the coping behaviour even more appealing. And thus the negative coping loop reinforces itself indefinitely…

I think this is why we need to be careful not to look at any one behaviour in isolation. It is rarely just “too much cannabis” or “too much social media” or “poor time management.” Often, these are part of a larger stress-and-coping loop. The behaviour may be helping the student get through the day, but it may also be making it harder for them to recover, connect with others, or engage academically. That is the piece people underestimate: not that one factor causes everything, but that small patterns can compound over time, especially when students are isolated or ashamed to ask for support.

Q: Cannabis is often talked about as either harmless or dangerous, with very little room in between. What should a more accurate, evidence-based conversation about cannabis, stress, and student well being include?

Dr. Hellemans: Ah yes, such a challenging public health topic!!! We have raised this at our annual Canadian Cannabis Research Summit ! Both things can be true: some people can use cannabis and experience little harm, while others may escalate their use or experience significant harms depending on their biology, mental health, life stress, reasons for use, and broader social context. That is what makes risk communication difficult. If we talk about cannabis as harmless, we miss the real risks for some students. But if we talk about it only as dangerous, we lose credibility and often increase stigma or shame.

A more accurate conversation would focus less on simple categories like “good” or “bad” and more on patterns, function, and impact. I often talk about paying attention to “pink flags” in substance use: are you thinking about cannabis more often than not? Are you using it mainly to cope with stress, anxiety, low mood, or loneliness? Are you using alone regularly, or using in ways that interfere with sleep, motivation, relationships, school, or other coping strategies? It is not just about how often someone uses cannabis; it is also about how, when, why, and with whom.

Our research suggests that certain cannabis use behaviours tend to cluster together and are associated with more cannabis-related problems. So the health message cannot be one-size-fits-all. We need cannabis education that is evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, and free of stigma and shame, while still being honest about risk. For students, the goal is not fear; it is self-awareness, earlier help-seeking, and better choices about what is actually supporting their well being.

Q: Public conversations about youth and social media often become more alarmed than precise. When students hear claims that social media is “addictive” or “rewiring the brain,” what should they question first?

Dr. Hellemans: Who is saying this? Is it a reliable source? Is it one paper or is it a body of evidence? Every behaviour to some capacity ‘rewires’ your brain , and while it is true that some people develop more problems around social media, it is not everyone. In the same way that alcohol/cannabis/nicotine etc. does not ‘cause’ addiction, neither does social media. We know that addiction (or substance use disorders/behavioural addictions) come about as a combination of individual vulnerability, stress, and a behaviour/substance that is highly rewarding.

I would also want students to move away from asking only “is social media addictive?” and ask more practical questions: what is my use doing for me, and what is it costing me? Is it helping me connect, learn, laugh, or decompress, or is it replacing sleep, studying, in-person relationships, or other ways of coping? Am I choosing to use it, or am I using it automatically when I feel stressed, lonely, bored, or anxious? Those questions are more useful than panic-based claims about the brain, because they help students pay attention to function, pattern, and impact.

Q: Stigma Ends at CU focuses on substance use, substance use health, and behavioural addictions. When addiction is discussed as either a moral failure or only a brain disease, what impacts can that framing have and how can those generalizations be overcome?

Dr. Hellemans: When we look at addictions as a moral failure, we immediately locate the problem within the person: they are weak, irresponsible, dangerous, or somehow deserving of blame. That framing is incredibly harmful because it increases shame and social distance, and it makes it less likely that people will seek support early, before things become more serious. But I also think we need to be careful with the other extreme, which is saying addiction is only a brain disease. That framing was important in pushing back against moralizing language, but on its own it can still be too narrow. It can make addiction seem permanent, biologically fixed, or separate from the social conditions that shape people’s lives. In reality, substance use and behavioural addictions sit within a much more complicated biopsychosocial context: stress, trauma, coping, mental health, housing, relationships, policy, culture, and access to care all matter.

This is where work on substance use stigma is so helpful, because it shows that stigma is not just about using a few “bad words.” It shows up in public attitudes, in policies and systems, and eventually in the way people understand themselves. Language like “addict,” “clean,” or “substance abuser” can reinforce the idea that some people are less worthy of care, or that they should be punished rather than supported. At the same time, broader structural messages (e.g., services that only appear once someone is in crisis) can send the message that substance use health is only relevant when someone has a disorder. I think overcoming those generalizations means talking about substance use across a spectrum of health, using person-first and non-stigmatizing language, including lived experience in the design of education and services, and creating supports that people can access without shame. The goal is not to remove personal responsibility, but to put responsibility in the right context: people make choices, but those choices are shaped by stress, biology, environment, policy, and whether support feels safe enough to reach for.

Q: A University Affairs article described Stigma Ends at CU as a student-run campaign using social media to explain addiction science and share lived experience. What contributed to the project’s success, and what should student-led mental health or neuroscience projects be careful not to do?

Dr. Hellemans: I believe the projects’ success came from a few key elements: first, giving student voice agency and responsibility in communicating the importance of reducing stigma as it relates to addictive behaviours. Second, working in partnership with our community partners, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, as well as CAPSA (formally known as the Community Addiction Peer Support Association) as well as our internal Carleton University student support services. When we have that magic combination of students, faculty, staff, and community, it means that all voices are present in the room and that we are working together with a common goal. We made several mistakes in our first year, particularly around the language we used in our posts and how we spoke about addiction and showcasing the voice of those with lived and living experience with substance use disorders, but a willingness to learn, unlearn, and have humility is so crucial to allyship in this space. Thus, I would be cautious about ensuring all voices are represented and heard, and that you do not let ego (“I know best”) get in the way of allyship.

Q: Carleton describes you as an award-winning educator, and your profile notes the OCUFA Provincial Teaching Award, neuroscience animations on substance use and stigma, and the award-winning podcast Minding the Brain. After years of teaching and public communication, what has changed in the way you explain difficult brain health topics?

Dr. Hellemans: I think one of the biggest changes is that I am much more cautious about assuming that good science communication is simply about giving people more information. For a long time, there was this “empty cup” model, where the idea was that if people just had the facts, they would come to the evidence-based conclusion. But in the last 5–10 years, with increasing anti-expert sentiment and skepticism toward science, I have become much more aware that people do not come to these conversations as blank slates. They bring their own experiences, fears, values, political context, and sometimes distrust of institutions.

So now, when I explain difficult brain health topics, I try to lead less with certainty and more with curiosity, humility, and clarity. I still think it is important to explain the neuroscience accurately, but I also try to acknowledge complexity and avoid making people feel judged or talked down to. That is especially important for topics like substance use, mental health, stress, or stigma, where people may have deeply personal connections to the issue. I try to ask: what does this person or audience need to understand, what assumptions might they already be carrying, and how can I make the science feel relevant without oversimplifying it? For me, good science communication is not just translating facts; it is building enough trust that people are willing to engage with the evidence in the first place.

Q: After studying and teaching topics like stress, substance use, stigma, and student well being, what do you think young people should be more aware of that they might not think about too often?

Dr. Hellemans: Not avoiding stress! I think we are increasingly seeing young adults frame stress as entirely negative, or as a sign that something is wrong. But from a developmental neuroscience perspective, that is not quite right. The brain is still developing well into young adulthood, including the systems involved in emotion regulation, decision-making, motivation, and coping. Those systems need practice. Facing mild to moderate, controllable stressors, especially when there is support, recovery, and a sense of agency, is part of how we build resilience.

I often use the analogy of building muscle: if you want to get stronger, you do not avoid all weight; you gradually lift heavier weights in a way that is challenging but not unsafe. Stress is similar. The problem is not discomfort itself. The problem is when stress is overwhelming, chronic, unpredictable, or experienced without support. I think young people would benefit from learning the difference between “this is hard and uncomfortable” and “this is harmful or unsafe.” Part of wellbeing is learning how to move through manageable stress, recover from it, and ask for support when the load becomes too heavy. Resilience is not about pretending everything is fine; it is about developing the tools, relationships, and self-awareness to navigate difficulty without being defined by it.

Thank you, Dr. Hellemans!

Links:

• Website: https://hellemansgroup.wixsite.com/hellemans

• Follow Dr. Kim Hellemans on Instagram (@drkimhellemans) and Linkedln.

Share

Leave a comment

For World Brain Day, I created a brain health display at a local public library. I chose to highlight books about neuroscience, sleep, stress, memory, mental well-being, and other related topics. I also included educational materials that visitors could read at the library or take home.

The library felt like a very good place for this project to be situated in, as it gives people of different ages and backgrounds free and easy access to information. Visitors could come across the clear and understandable brain health resources during a regular library visit, even if they had not planned to search for information about the brain.

I first created a World Brain Day display at the library last summer. This year, I brought the project back and connected it more closely to the 2026 theme of access. It gave me another chance to share brain health information in a community space.

I am grateful to the library for supporting the project and giving me space to share these resources with the community!

Share NeuroKnow

Beginning centuries ago with misconceptions about being caused by spiritual possessions or sins leading to punishment from the gods, the true understanding of what epilepsy is and what it does has come a long way. Epilepsy affects millions around the world. However, even now, many still have a narrow understanding of the condition. The word “epilepsy” usually brings seizures to mind first, even though the experience can include much more than the seizure itself. Epilepsy involves what is truly occurring in the brain during a seizure, what recovery can feel like afterward, and how misunderstanding of it can shape everyday life.

This post focuses on the bigger picture: seizures, recovery, basic safety, and stigma. For diagnosis and treatment, it is always best to speak with a medical professional. The aim here is to understand epilepsy more clearly, with less fear and more respect for anyone living with it.

Seizures

A seizure occurs when a group of nerve cells in the brain suddenly begins sending signals much faster than usual, all at once. This interrupts the brain’s normal activity. Depending on where it happens, a seizure can affect movement, awareness, sensation, emotions, or behavior. Some seizures are easy to notice, while others can be much less obvious.

Having one seizure does not always mean someone has epilepsy. Epilepsy is usually defined as a tendency to have two or more unprovoked seizures. In this case, “unprovoked” means the seizure was not caused by something temporary, such as a fever or a recent injury. Epilepsy involves an ongoing tendency in the brain to produce these sudden bursts of unusual electrical activity.

Why one seizure may look different from another

Seizures can be different from one another because the unusual electrical activity can start in different parts of the brain and spread in different ways. Some seizures, called focal seizures, begin in one area of the brain. Generalized seizures involve both sides of the brain from the beginning. And in other cases, a seizure starts in one spot and then spreads farther.

The location where seizures begin physically manifests in different ways. One person may have a hand twitch, a strange feeling, or a short gap in awareness. Someone else may lose consciousness, fall, or have full-body jerking. This is one reason epilepsy is often misunderstood; when convulsive seizures are the only well-known example, other kinds and symptoms of seizures can be overlooked or misunderstood.

When seizures are easy to miss

Some seizures are quiet and easy to miss at first. A person might suddenly stop what they are doing and stare for a few seconds. This can happen during absence seizures, where awareness briefly cuts out. Some seizures can also include small repeated movements, called automatisms, like rapid blinking, lip-smacking, chewing movements, or picking at clothes without realizing it. To someone nearby, the person may seem confused, dazed, or briefly disconnected.

Even though these signs are subtle, they still stem from unusual activity in the brain. In school or other busy places, these short episodes can be mistaken for distraction or tiredness. Seizures are not always obvious and easily recognizable.

What recovery can involve

The seizure itself may end, but recovery follows in the period after. The brain often needs time to settle again, and this recovery phase is called the postictal period. It can last from a few minutes to several hours. During that time, someone may feel very tired, weak, confused, or unsure of what just happened. Memory loss or amnesia can be part of this period as well, and the person may not remember the seizure itself or what happened immediately before/after. There can also be an emotional side to recovery; some individuals may feel anxious, melancholic, or unsettled for a while afterward.

In some cases, there can also be temporary weakness or paralysis on one side of the body after a seizure known as Todd’s paralysis. It usually fades away within about a day, but because it can resemble a stroke, first-time one-sided weakness should be examined as an emergency. Recovery can impact school, work, travel, and everyday routines. Quiet, rest, reassurance, and patience can help while the brain and body settle again.

Basic seizure first aid

Seizure first aid focuses on keeping the person safe and staying calm until the seizure is over, while moving harmful objects away and putting something soft and flat under their head if needed. It helps to stay with the person, move away anything hard or sharp nearby, and, if they are on the ground, gently turn them onto one side. Timing the seizure can also be useful.

Some things should be avoided: the person should not be held down, and nothing should be put in their mouth. Food, water, or medicine should wait until the person is fully awake.

Emergency medical help is required in some situations. These include a seizure lasting more than five minutes, another seizure starting soon after the first, trouble breathing or waking afterward, injury, a seizure in water, a first seizure, pregnancy, or diabetes with loss of consciousness. After the seizure ends, the person may still feel confused, tired, or upset, so patience and reassurance can help during recovery.

Fear, myths, and misunderstanding

Epilepsy has been surrounded by stigma for a long time. The World Health Organization (WHO) shares that fear, misunderstanding, and discrimination have followed epilepsy for centuries. Some of this comes from old myths, including the false idea that epilepsy is contagious. There is also felt stigma, which refers to the shame, embarrassment, or fear of being judged that someone may carry because of how others might respond.

This can impact more than the seizure itself and carry into everyday life. Stigma isolates people as they stay quiet about what they are going through or miss out on support and opportunities at school, work, and in social situations. For some, this social side can be just as difficult to deal with as the seizures. Better awareness, calmer responses, and basic respect can help make things easier.

Learning about epilepsy can replace fear and confusion with calmer and more educated understanding. Knowing what a seizure is, how recovery can feel, and what first aid involves can help keep everyone involved safer, and push back against the stigma that has surrounded epilepsy for so long.

Epilepsy includes more than the seizure itself: recovery, support, and dignity are a large and important part of it as well. Having clear and accurate information encourages a safer, kinder, and more respectful environment for anyone living with epilepsy.

Share

Meet Dr. Jennifer Gelinas — pediatric neurologist, neuroscientist, and epilepsy researcher at UC Irvine.

Dr. Gelinas is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Anatomy and Neurobiology in University of California, Irvine’s School of Medicine, where her work focuses on epilepsy, memory, cognition, neural networks, and how brain disorders can affect learning and attention beyond seizures themselves. She earned both her Ph.D. in Neuroscience and her M.D. at the University of Alberta and later completed pediatric neurology training at the University of British Columbia. She also leads the Epilepsy and Cognition Lab, which studies how epileptic activity disrupts brain networks involved in memory and cognition and explores ways to protect brain function alongside seizure treatment. Most recently, a study she co-led on closed-loop stimulation and memory preservation in epilepsy was recognized by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke as one of the top 10 brain research advances of 2025.

In this NeuroKnow Conversations feature, Dr. Gelinas reflects on why epilepsy should be understood as more than seizures, how it can shape memory and learning, and why protecting cognition is such an important part of brain-focused treatment and research.

Q: Many individuals think of epilepsy mainly in terms of seizures. What tends to be overlooked about how it can also affect memory, learning, and attention?

Dr. Gelinas: Seizures are of course the defining feature of epilepsy. But many patients report problems in other areas of their lives, including cognition, mood, and sleep among others. Children with epilepsy can also have abnormal development due to their epilepsy. These symptoms can impact quality of life similarly, or even more, than seizures, but we have far fewer options in how we can address them.

Q: Some studies in epilepsy look closely at brain activity between seizures, not just during them. How can those “in-between” signals still interfere with memory and thinking?

Dr. Gelinas: The brain networks of people with epilepsy typically show abnormalities even when there is no seizure activity ongoing. One type of abnormality is the interictal epileptiform discharge (IED). These abnormal signals disrupt the ongoing activity patterns that our brains need to perform functions like remembering and paying attention. Such functions rely on precise activation and coordination of specific brain cells. IEDs can activate too many brain cells at once or change the interaction between brain cells, essentially introducing "noise" into the system.

Q: Another important idea in this field is that epilepsy can affect entire brain networks, not just one seizure focus. How does this broader network view change the way scientists think about cognitive symptoms?

Dr. Gelinas: It is increasingly established that cognitive functions require coordination between multiple brain regions. We are also realizing that epileptic signals are particularly adept at interfering with communication between brain regions. Therefore, cognition can be at risk when epileptic signals are frequent or occur in critical time periods.

Q: Your recent closed-loop stimulation study was recognized by NINDS as one of the top brain-research advances of 2025. What felt most meaningful about this result, especially in relation to memory?

Dr. Gelinas: This recognition was so meaningful to us because it spreads awareness about memory impairment as an often debilitating and under-recognized symptom of epilepsy. It also identifies treatment of memory impairment as a key therapeutic goal for patients with epilepsy and supports our work to translate our findings in animal models to clinical relevance in humans.

Q: That study suggests it may be possible to protect memory even when seizures are still ongoing. How does that change the way people might think about treatment goals in epilepsy?

Dr. Gelinas: The ultimate goal for epilepsy is cure - not just for seizures, but for all associated comorbidities too. We still have a long way to go in this goal, and I think that our work provides optimism that even when seizures are difficult to treat, we can make strides to improve other symptoms that also impact quality of life.

Q: How has working with patients shaped the way you think about cognition as part of epilepsy treatment, especially in cases where the cognitive effects of epilepsy are hard to ignore?

Dr. Gelinas: Working with patients and families has emphasized to me the critical importance of addressing the cognitive component in epilepsy. For instance, when a child has a difficulty to treat epilepsy, opportunities for them to learn, play, socialize and mature are so meaningful. If we could optimize cognitive development, we could enhance these opportunities and improve overall outcomes.

Q: The lab also studies neurodevelopmental disorders linked to epilepsy, autism, and intellectual disability. What makes early brain development such an important window for understanding later cognitive function?

Dr. Gelinas: The brain is importantly shaped by early life experiences, and is primed to be maximally "plastic" or adaptable in early years. For example, our ability to remember our life experiences only emerges in the toddler years. When brain signals are disrupted by epilepsy during these developmental windows, the capacity to perform cognitive functions may be negatively impacted, or even lost.

Q: What do you wish more people understood earlier about epilepsy and the brain?

Dr. Gelinas: We now understand that epilepsy changes the way our brain cells interact and communicate, leading to seizures but potentially many other problems. If we had a clearer mechanistic understanding of how brain networks affected by epilepsy have difficulty performing their normal functions, it would have been possible to develop targeted treatments for the cognitive and psychiatric symptoms of epilepsy earlier.

Thank you, Dr. Gelinas!

Meet Dr. Junqiang (Jacob) Dai — Assistant Professor of Neuroscience and Psychology at Georgia State University.

Dr. Dai studies adolescent development through a social lens, with research interests that include peer influence, puberty, face perception, social reward and sensitivity, risk taking, and real-world social networks. He earned his Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Penn State University in 2021, completed postdoctoral training at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and joined Georgia State in 2024. Across this work, he uses methods including fMRI, behavioral paradigms, sociometric network analysis, and survey measures to better understand how adolescent brain development is shaped by social context.

In this NeuroKnow Conversations issue, Dr. Dai discusses how adolescence is often oversimplified, why peer influence is more complicated than it seems, and what developmental neuroscience can reveal about social contexts, puberty, and the teenage brain.

Q: Many conversations about teenagers still reduce adolescence to impulsivity or bad decisions. What is often missed when adolescence is framed this way?

Dr. Dai: When adolescence is framed mainly as a period of impulsivity or poor decision-making, we miss that it is also an important period of learning, adaptation, growth, and increasing autonomy. Teenagers are becoming more independent, forming deeper relationships, exploring their identities, and learning how to navigate increasingly complex social environments. Many behaviors that adults interpret as “bad decisions” may actually be part of this broader and normal developmental process. Importantly, not every teenager engages in risky behavior, and taking risks does not necessarily lead to negative outcomes. In fact, many adaptive behaviors in adulthood require some willingness to take risks; for instance, applying to a competitive program, trying a new activity, speaking up for an important belief, forming new relationships, or pursuing an unfamiliar opportunity all involve uncertainty and the possibility of failure.

It is important to keep youths away from taking too many risks, but keep in mind that adolescence also provides the opportunity to learn and explore how to balance potential rewards and consequences through experience. A more complete view of adolescence now therefore recognizes it not simply as a period of risk, but as a period of tremendous possibility and developmental opportunity.

Q: Peer influence is often framed as negative. From a developmental neuroscience point of view, when can peers increase risk, and when can they also support healthier choices?

Dr Dai: Peer influence is not inherently negative. During adolescence, youths become particularly attentive to social information related to peers, such as peer faces, peer evaluation, and peer acceptance. This sensitivity can make many rewards feel more meaningful when peers are present, especially in risk taking contexts (e.g., smoking, drinking). For instance, risk may increase when youths are surrounded by peers who encourage dangerous behaviors, or when risky actions are endorsed by peer groups. However, the same neurodevelopmental sensitivity can also support adaptive and healthy choices. We have some research showing that peers can model positive behaviors, encourage academic effort, promote health activity, reduce substance use, and increase prosocial behaviors. From this perspective, adolescents’ responsiveness to peers may be understood as part of a broader tendency to learn from their peers, rather than simply an inherent weakness. The effect of peers depends on the norms of their group, the situation, the quality of relations, and the individual youth. Therefore, instead of asking whether peer influence is good or bad, we should ask what kinds of peer environments help channel youths’ sensitivity toward exploration, connection, and positive development.

Q: One of your papers examined social hierarchies in adolescents’ real-world peer networks. What does this kind of work reveal, compared to a more isolated lab task?

Dr Dai: Laboratory tasks are valuable because they allow researchers to carefully control what adolescents see and experience. However, adolescents do not encounter peers as anonymous faces or simple experimental stimuli in everyday life. Indeed, they interact with classmates and often unconsciously infer each peer’s social status. Our findings suggested that adolescents’ brains spontaneously distinguish among peers based on their social value within the group. This kind of research connects neuroscience methods with adolescents’ actual social worlds. It helps us understand how adolescents interpret the complex relationships and hierarchies they navigate every day. Ultimately, these real-world social structures may help us better understand why particular peer experiences are associated with differences in adolescents’ behavior.

Share NeuroKnow

Q: Many reduce puberty down to just hormones and mood swings. From brain development research, what is the most important thing to understand about puberty being a developmental process rather than just a stereotype?

Dr Dai: Puberty is not a single hormonal event; it is a gradual and multidimensional developmental process involving hormonal changes, physical maturation, brain development, and shifts in how youths understand themselves and relate to others. It is also important to understand puberty within different contexts. The experience of maturing early or late may differ depending on family support, peer relationships, cultural expectations, school environments, and how others respond to the adolescent’s changing body. Therefore, puberty is a normal process that is relevant to adolescent development.

Q: Human faces are important in this work as well. Why are faces such an important window into adolescent social development, especially during a stage when peer relationships are very important?

Dr Dai: Faces are one of the most important social information we encounter in our daily life. Importantly, human has an innate ability to quickly recognize faces and make decision towards different individuals, which are fundamentally supported by a wide range of face processing brain networks. Faces may be especially meaningful during adolescence because peer relationships become increasingly central to everyday life. Our lab has much research demonstrating that adolescents recognize their peers’ faces better than other faces, which we believe to have important relevance for adolescent social behaviors in peer contexts, especially peer influences.

Q: In this field of work, there is a clear interest in adolescence being shaped in social contexts rather than in isolation. What drew you to studying development in this broader social context?

Dr Dai: What drew me to this work was the realization that I have seen many youths (including those when I was a teenager) ultimately develop in different ways when they grow up. In addition, research has shown that are substantial individual differences in adolescent development. For instance, while some kids tend to make risky decisions in their lives, many kids do not take risks. One important factor I consider is social context. Adolescents develop in multiple social contexts, which may overlap and work together to influence adolescents’ brain development, social behaviors, and mental health.

Q: For readers of NeuroKnow, what is one idea from developmental neuroscience that can make peer pressure more understandable and less one-dimensional?

Dr Dai: One helpful idea is that peer pressure is not simply a teenager “losing control” because of friends. Adolescents are learning how to function within a new social world – peer relations. Because belonging and social acceptance become especially meaningful during adolescence, a decision may carry two kinds of consequences: the real consequence of the behavior itself and the social consequence of how peers may respond. For instance, youth may reject a cigarette from a friend, which protects their health but they may lose social status. Adolescents are susceptible to such peer influences in risk taking, but the same sensitivity to peers can also work in positive directions. Adolescents may study harder, try a new activity, stand up for someone, avoid harmful behavior, or seek help because peers support those choices. Therefore, peer influence is better understood as a form of social learning – adolescents care about their friends and may change their behaviors. In this case, providing youths a good environment to make them grow and strive is important.

Thank you, Dr. Dai!

Link:

• Website: https://www.insd-lab.com/

For each session, I designed an interactive presentation that focused on the pillars of brain health and aging in a practical and science-backed way: common cognitive changes over time, what can still be strengthened, and which daily habits can support brain health. I also included a few activities to help reinforce the ideas in a more engaging way (and to have a little fun).

Across both communities, the audiences were thoughtful and engaged. Participants asked specific questions, shared their own perspectives, and offered feedback that showed they were genuinely reflecting on the material and learning how to better apply it to their lives.

These visits also highlighted the value of in-person science communication. Translating written content into a live setting requires precision, responsiveness, and the ability to adapt explanations in real time based on audience questions and experiences. I am looking forward to doing more of these sessions, as they turn NeuroKnow into a resource that can support brain health across different parts of the community and across different stages of life.

Follow NK on Instagram, too: @theneuroknow

For the last post in this Brain Health Basics mini-series, I wanted to write about emotional well-being. Earlier posts covered Sleep, Stress, Movement, Nutrition, and Cognitive Fitness. These topics looked at habits and conditions that affect how the brain operates in everyday life. Emotional well-being connects closely with all of them, since feelings can have a real and significant impact on focus, motivation, sleep, relationships, and recovery.

This post cannot cover every mental health situation — each one is different and requires individual analysis. Instead, I will focus on emotional well-being from a brain-health angle: how emotional load can shape thinking, and how recovery/rest, connection, & support can help the brain feel more stable again.

What is Emotional Well-being?

In this post, emotional well-being means noticing what is going on inside of you (thoughts, feelings, etc), understanding what might be causing it, and choosing a response that fits the situation. Emotions can point to pressure, conflict, disappointment, excitement, or the need to slow down. They can also affect how we process information and respond to what is happening around us.

Feeling calm all the time is unrealistic. Rather, emotional well-being is more about recognizing an emotional load before it begins taking over your thoughts, reactions, or energy. Your response to it will look different depending on the situation and moment. It might mean pausing before reacting, changing your environment, solving the problem, talking to someone, resting, or asking for support. In terms of brain health, it’s important to remember that emotions can shape attention, decision-making, motivation, sleep, and recovery after stress.

Emotional Load and Attention

Emotional load can cause paying attention to become more difficult. Verkuil et al. (2010) describe perseverative cognition as getting stuck in repeated worry or rumination about something stressful, even when it is not happening at the moment or has not happened yet. In real life, this might look like replaying a conversation, worrying about a grade, or going over the same problem again and again.

Emotions are still helpful, as they can reveal to us when something is stressful, disappointing, uncomfortable, or important. The issue is when the same thought keeps coming back and takes up too much mental space, overriding other thoughts and senses. Then, it is more difficult to focus on the task in front of us, listen carefully, learn something new, or make a clear decision.

Recovery after stress

After feeling stress, the brain needs time to calm down again. The first reaction is only part of it. How long the body stays worked up can affect focus, sleep, mood, and how clearly we think. If the brain does not feel safe yet, it may keep acting like the stressful moment is still happening. Recovery, however, helps the body and brain settle. This can look like sleeping, taking a walk, breathing slowly, stepping away before reacting, writing down what is bothering you, or talking to someone who can help you work it out or simply be there for you. Recovery does not make your emotions disappear, but helps you come back from them.

Flexible Responses

A helpful, related idea to know is regulatory flexibility. Bonanno and Burton (2013) explain that handling emotions depends on the situation, the tools a person has, and whether the response is actually helping. Different moments can call for different responses. If something can be fixed, problem-solving may help. If emotions are rising too quickly, pausing may help. If the same thought keeps coming back, writing it down or shifting attention may help. If the situation feels too large to handle alone, talking to someone may be the better step. This is why simple advice such as “just breathe” or “stay positive” can feel incomplete. Useful self-regulation usually needs more than one option that works for you, not just general catch-all advice.

Mindfulness, Writing, and Naming Feelings

A few techniques can help people handle emotional load, although the effects are usually modest and can vary from person to person.

One example is mindfulness, which usually means paying attention to the present moment with curiosity and acceptance. Dunning et al. (2019) found that mindfulness-based programs for children and teens showed some benefits for mental health and well-being, though the results were not the same across every outcome. In everyday terms, mindfulness can help someone slow down, notice what they are feeling, and pause before reacting.

Writing can also help some people sort through difficult experiences. Frattaroli (2006) reviewed research on emotional disclosure and found small overall benefits. Writing about thoughts and feelings may help make them easier to understand, especially when they continue appearing.

Another technique is naming feelings. Torre and Lieberman (2018) describe affect labeling as putting emotions into words, which can sometimes make the feeling easier to handle. These tools provide different ways to respond to emotional load.

Connection and Support

Having people you trust can give you someone to talk to, help you feel less alone, and make stress feel a little easier to handle. Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton (2010) found that social relationships were linked with health outcomes across many studies. One conversation may not fix everything, but feeling connected still supports both brain health and overall health. We humans are ultimately social creatures.

Support can come from different people, such as a friend, family member, teacher, counselor, or clinician. Sometimes, talking to someone else helps you see the situation more clearly when emotions weigh you down. The National Institute of Mental Health also encourages people to seek help when distress is strong, lasts for a while, or starts affecting everyday life. For some people, that help may include therapy, medication, or crisis support.

This Brain Health Basics series covered sleep, stress, movement, nutrition, and cognitive fitness. Emotional well-being connects with all of them: feelings can affect focus, sleep, motivation, recovery, and relationships. Some days are easier to handle than others, and emotions do not always simmer down right away. Maintaining brain health also includes noticing what is going on inside of your mind, taking one next step, recovering after stress, staying connected with others, and seeking help when it is needed. Taking care of the brain certainly includes taking care of emotional life.

Leave a comment

NK Instagram

At first, cognitive fitness sounds very straightforward: keep the brain challenged. However, it is not as simple as it seems — the concept requires more analysis and care. Earlier Brain Health Basics posts focused on the conditions that shape how the brain works: Sleep, Stress, Movement, and Nutrition. Cognitive fitness looks more at how the brain is used and challenged during learning, problem-solving, and focused work.

That challenge could be a variety of things: a puzzle game, a difficult book, a new language, music practice, math problems, or trying to explain something from memory. The brain does not treat all challenges the same way, though. Some types of practice mostly strengthen the exact skill being practiced. Other habits seem more connected to learning that lasts and transfers beyond the moment.

What Does “Engaged” Mean?

In the context of this post, I am using cognitive fitness as a synonym for mental activity causing the brain to do work: focusing, remembering, solving problems, catching mistakes, utilizing feedback, and adjusting to different situations. Rereading notes, watching explanations, highlighting, or scrolling through study content can feel useful, especially when the material starts to look familiar. Those habits can help at times. Still, deeper learning usually comes from doing more with the information.

That happens when you try to pull something from memory, choose a strategy, test what you understand, notice what you missed, and correct the errors. This kind of effort can be slower and not as comfortable at first because the brain has to work harder. Over time, it supports learning that is more likely to stay with you long-term. Cognitive fitness comes from the quality of thinking happening during an activity, especially when challenge, recall, and feedback are part of the process.

The Limits of Brain Training

Brain games are one of the first things people think of when they hear “cognitive fitness,” which is why I believe some clarification is useful here. In many studies, people do improve on the games or tasks they practice. Someone who keeps practicing a memory task with dots, patterns, or sequences will probably become faster and more accurate at that exact task.

The important question is whether that improvement carries over into other areas. A 2016 review by Simons et al. explains that skills from brain-training programs do not consistently spread to broad abilities like school performance, everyday memory, or general intelligence. Fernand Gobet and Giovanni Sala make a similar point in their 2023 review of cognitive training.

This is where the idea of transfer becomes important. Narrow transfer means improvement on tasks that are very similar to the one practiced. Broader transfer means the improvement that supports wider thinking skills. The reviews suggest that narrow transfer is much easier to find than broad transfer. So, brain games can be enjoyable and useful for practicing a specific skill, but high scores on an app do not prove that someone’s entire mind has become sharper.

Subscribe now

Cognitive Friction: Why the Brain Needs to Avoid Autopilot

Activities associated with cognitive fitness that challenge your brain are useful when they require focus, lead to mistakes, give feedback, and slowly become more difficult. Feedback helps practice stay active and useful. When a task stays too easy for too long, the brain can start going into autopilot. Learning usually becomes stronger when you notice what went wrong, change your approach, and try again.

Even things you enjoy can still challenge you. A strategy game can help you plan ahead. Drawing often means fixing mistakes as you go. Preparing for a debate can sharpen how you remember, organize, and quicken your thinking. The key is that the challenge should be just hard enough to keep the brain focused and improving.

Retrieval, Spacing, and Mixing Practice

Three helpful ideas for cognitive fitness are retrieval, spacing, and mixing practice.

Retrieval practice means trying to pull information from memory before checking the answer. A 2021 review by Agarwal et al. shows that retrieval practice supports learning across many classroom settings. This can include closing your notes and explaining a concept, answering practice questions, or writing out what you remember first. However, common methods such as rereading and highlighting can be misleading because the material begins to feel familiar and may not actually contribute to stronger long-term memory. Recall takes more effort because the brain has to search for the information and bring it forward.

Spacing is about timing. In a 2013 review, Dunlosky et al. found stronger support for practice testing and distributed practice than for common habits like highlighting and rereading. Rhys Mawson and Sean Kang also found support for distributed practice in a 2025 classroom-focused meta-analysis. Spacing means returning to material across days instead of cramming everything into one long session. It can feel slower because some forgetting happens between sessions, but that extra effort helps strengthen memory.

Mixing practice, or interleaving, means practicing different but related problem types together. In a 2019 meta-analysis, Matthias Brunmair and Tobias Richter found that interleaving can support learning, depending on the material and situation. In math or science, mixed practice pushes the brain to choose the right method for each problem, rather than training you to simply repeat the same steps automatically.

These strategies may make your studying feel less smooth at first. However, they also force the brain to work more actively, which can lead to stronger understanding and learning that lasts longer.

Beyond School

Cognitive fitness is useful in school, but it also applies to life outside that. Adults use these same skills when they learn a new tool at work, read something carefully, manage a difficult task, try a new hobby, or stay active in a community. For teenagers, this connects to brain development too. Research by Brenden Tervo-Clemmens et al. shows that executive functions, like focus, planning, and flexible thinking, keep developing from adolescence into early adulthood. Since these skills are still growing, regular mental challenges can help keep the brain engaged in useful ways.

Overall, cognitive fitness is built through regular mental effort: focusing, remembering, learning, adjusting, and staying engaged with challenging tasks. Activities that include feedback, along with strategies like retrieval practice and spacing, can make that effort more useful over time. At its core, cognitive fitness is the steady habit of using the brain actively so your thinking stays flexible, your skills stay sharp, and your learning and knowledge lasts beyond the current moment.

Share

Leave a comment

While nutrition is often discussed in terms of diets and healthy choices to be made and kept over long periods of time, students also deal with its more immediate effects during a normal school day — more than they think. Food, hydration, caffeine, sleep, and possible nutrient lapses can all shape how the brain feels and functions.

The most useful way to think about this is brain state. If you are under-fueled, dehydrated, short on sleep, over-caffeinated, or missing certain nutrients, focusing and remembering information becomes more difficult. Research on adolescents does connect diet with learning and school performance, but the strongest and overall takeaway is that nutrition supports the brain’s everyday needs in a steady, realistic manner.

This post explores nutrition viewed through a brain-health lens that fits student life: what affects focus, energy, and mental clarity during a real school day. It also connects with the earlier Brain Health Basics posts on Sleep, Stress, and Movement, because all three shape appetite, energy, caffeine use, and how the body handles fuel.

What Nutrition Reliably Affects (& What It Does Not)

Nutrition can be seen as something that helps the brain stay steady throughout the day. It cannot suddenly make someone “smarter,” but it can affect how clearly they think and how well they work through normal school tasks. For students, the real benefits appear in everyday skills such as focus, working memory, self-control, and mental stamina. Working memory is the ability to keep information in mind while using it, such as remembering steps in a math problem or following what a teacher is explaining.

When the brain is under-fueled, dehydrated, or impacted by excess caffeine, thinking and focusing are more difficult. Most students can feel the difference when trying to work after eating enough versus trying to push through on an empty stomach. Nutrition helps create better conditions for thinking, especially during long days filled with classes, homework, and activities.

Baseline Fuel and Energy Stability

Breakfast may not sound like the most exciting nutrition topic (and I’m sure some of you skip it altogether), but it truly does matter for students. Studies suggest that children and teenagers often do better on some morning thinking tasks after eating breakfast compared with going through the morning on an empty stomach. Again, the largest differences usually appear in focus, memory, and self-control, which are all things students need during class.

This does not mean everyone needs a huge breakfast. The main idea is that starting the day with no fuel can make school feel more difficult, especially when one has exams, long classes, or busy mornings. Some studies also found that breakfast helped students be accurate and respond more steadily later in the morning.

The type of breakfast may matter too, but the research is less clear there. Some studies suggest that lower Glycemic Index (GI) foods may help attention last longer, while other reviews do not find one clear “best” breakfast. Thus, the most realistic takeaway is simple: having some steady fuel is usually better than trying to run on nothing.

For students, nutrition is one way to help the brain feel more steady, focused, and ready for the morning.

Subscribe now

Hydration, Caffeine, & Brain State

Two things that are easy to overlook are water and caffeine timing. Hydration seems basic, but it can still affect how the brain feels during the day. Some studies connect hydration with mood, memory, and thinking, although the effects are not the same for every task. In school-day research, drinking water in the morning has been linked with better performance on some memory tasks. Simply put, when one is not well hydrated, focusing can feel more difficult, even if it seems like you are just unmotivated.

Caffeine is also about timing. It can make someone feel more alert for a while because it blocks adenosine, a chemical that helps the body feel sleepy. The problem is that caffeine can also affect sleep later in the day too. Studies in adolescents connect caffeine timing with later bedtimes, less deep sleep, and more sleep problems.

For students, water and caffeine may be small things, but they can still affect how steady the brain feels during a school day. For more on caffeine and sleep timing, see the post on sleep.

Stress & Sleep Connections

Stress and sleep both shape how food choices feel during the day. When students are stressed, eating patterns can change, although it looks different for everyone. Some people may reach for sweeter or higher-calorie foods, while others may lose their appetite or forget to eat entirely. Either way, stress can negatively impact eating habits.

Sleep also plays a role. Studies in adolescents suggest that shorter sleep is linked with less healthy eating patterns. Experimental research also shows that when teens get less sleep, certain foods — especially sweets and desserts — can seem more appealing the next day. This does not remove personal choice, but rather shows that food decisions are often influenced by how the body itself is already feeling.

That is why nutrition connects closely with sleep and stress. What we eat can shape the day, and the day can shape how we eat.

A Few Nutrients Worth Knowing

A few nutrients are useful to mention, as long as they are kept in perspective. Iron is one of the clearest examples, especially when someone is actually low in it. Iron helps support brain systems involved in attention and learning, and research connects iron levels with cognitive and school-related outcomes in adolescents. This is something that should be checked properly, since guessing or taking supplements randomly can cause health problems.

Omega-3 fatty acids also play a role in brain biology, although the research in teenagers is mixed. Some studies show small benefits for memory or working memory, while others do not find clear effects across all thinking skills.

Plant variety is helpful to think about as a bigger pattern. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other plant foods can support overall health and steadier brain function over time. The goal is enough variety to support the body and brain consistently.

Nutrition is one piece of how the brain handles a real day. It affects the conditions the brain is working with: enough fuel, steady hydration, caffeine timing that protects sleep, and fewer avoidable crashes during long stretches of focus. A perfect diet is unrealistic for many people, especially with busy schedules, limited time, and different levels of access. A more useful starting point is simple: eat something when you know your day will be demanding, drink enough water throughout the day, and think of caffeine as something that can negatively affect sleep later. These small choices you make can help your brain feel steadier when school, stress, and long days are already piling up and using up energy.

Leave a comment

Meet Dr. Kathleen M. Raley-Susman — biology professor, educator, and science communicator at Vassar College.

Dr. Susman is Professor of Biology on the J. P. Giraud, Jr. Chair, with academic interests that include behavior, stress physiology, environmental neuroscience, and science communication. She earned her B.S. from the College of William and Mary, then completed her M.S. and Ph.D. in Physiology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, followed by an American Heart Association-funded postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University.

After earlier research on stroke biochemistry and cytoskeletal dynamics, her work shifted toward environmental neurotoxicology, especially the behavioral and neural effects of common pesticides in soil organisms. Beyond the lab and classroom, she writes and podcasts through Modern Marinade and serves on the Environmental Management Council for the Dutchess County Legislature, helping bring issues such as chemical pesticides, excessive noise, and nighttime light pollution to broader public audiences.

In this NeuroKnow Conversation, Dr. Susman reflects on what environmental neuroscience can reveal about neural health, why studying real-world impacts is important, and how complex brain-health issues can be communicated more clearly beyond scientific spaces.

Q: Many individuals may not immediately know what “environmental neuroscience” comprises. What drew you into this area, and why does it feel urgent especially now?

Prof. Susman: Environmental neuroscience is a relatively new subfield in neuroscience that examines the role of environmental conditions like excessive heat, extreme weather events, noise, air and chemical pollution (including pesticides), habitat loss, deforestation and many other impacts caused by human activities on brain and behavior of humans and other animals. Many human activities alter sensory abilities, nervous system development, communication, behavior, reproduction and many other aspects of animal life that have consequences at the individual, species, community and even ecosystem levels.

I was drawn to this new area out of a concern for the increasing impacts of human activities on human health and wellbeing and wanted to better understand impacts on other animals as well. While most information about human activities concerns carbon emissions, global warming or severe weather, much less awareness is out there about the harms caused by noise, light and chemical pollution. I have shifted my teaching in neuroscience and human physiology to consider these other types of human impacts to increase awareness and understanding.

Q: Your 2020 PLOS ONE paper looked at a commercial insecticide formulation, not just one active ingredient on its own. What can full formulations reveal that single-ingredient studies might miss?

Prof. Susman: Commercial insecticides, the kind you buy at Home Depot or your local garden store, contain an “active” ingredient, which is the insecticide, along with “other” or “inert” ingredients that are not revealed to the consumer. These additional ingredients include chemicals that help shield the insecticide from UV light, or that help the insecticide stick to soil even after a rainstorm, or that help the plant roots suck up the insecticide, or that enhance the absorption of the insecticide into the insect, or that give the overall formulation a longer shelf life. What I and others have found in studying the commercial formulations is that they are often 1000 times (or more) toxic than the active ingredient alone. And these ingredients do not have to be listed on the chemical safety information labels. It’s the formulation that we are applying and that we are being exposed to, so that’s what we should be studying.

Q: Some of this research uses C. elegans, a tiny soil-dwelling roundworm often used in neuroscience and human disease mechanism studies. What makes this organism so well suited to explore deeper questions about neural health?

Prof. Susman: This helpful little soil nematode not only is an important part of the soil food chain, but it is also easy to work with in a laboratory setting. You can grow nematodes on petri dishes, feed them bacteria and they will grow from egg to egg-laying adult in about 4 days. They only live for about 15 days, so you can study different developmental stages, including aging. We share about 47% of our genes with this invertebrate, and many of the same biochemical pathways. With 302 neurons and a transparent body, these nematodes are perfect for exploring how neurons (and the behaviors they govern) are impacted by exposure to environmental challenges like chemicals or heat. The impacts on their nervous system and behavior can thus be a “model” for what could (and does) happen in more complex animals like birds and even us. They are amazing animals!

Q: One thing that stands out in pesticide research is that pesticides affect multiple different aspects — growth, movement, fertility, and neurons, for example — at the same time. What does this larger pattern tell us about pesticides?

Prof. Susman: This is such a key question! What these multiple different effects reveal is that pesticides and their mixtures are chemicals that alter key biochemical pathways found in many different animals that are crucial for development, growth, metabolism and even behavior. The scientific studies demonstrate that pesticides are harmful well beyond their intended uses and that they harm organisms from worms to honey bees to birds to pets to people. A really scary aspect that we don’t know much about yet is that we are all exposed to dozens or even hundreds of chemicals throughout our life. We are only just beginning to understand the impacts of mixtures of different pesticides, like insecticides in combination with herbicides (like Round Up). But we are also exposed to microplastics, PFAs (forever chemicals), air pollutants and so much more.

Subscribe now

Q: One study of yours found that heat stress could worsen some negative pesticide effects. What does this suggest about the risk of considering environmental stressors one at a time, in an isolated sense, instead of as overlapping pressures?

Prof. Susman: Because we are all exposed to multiple things at the same time, like excessive heat and wildfire smoke, as just one example, we do need to understand how multiple environmental stressors interact within our bodies at different times of our lives. It’s really difficult to isolate out all the different stressors in real-world scenarios, so scientists need to do studies to understand how a particular chemical or stressor causes harm by doing careful single studies in laboratory settings, and they also need to do studies that look at mixtures. How long we are exposed, along with how much we are exposed to, are also important factors in the consequences. It’s also really important to study how these stressors affect us at different times in our lives. For example, being exposed in infancy can have effects on brain development or immune system development, while exposure during adolescence might influence hormonal systems or brain maturation. Epidemiological studies of large populations of people, where health data have been collected over multiple years, are really helpful at helping us understand patterns and multiple effects.

Q: In an earlier conversation, you mentioned that you teach a course in environmental neuroscience relating to light during nighttime, noise and chemical pollution, climate change, and urbanization. Which of these tends to surprise students most, and why?

Prof. Susman: I guess if I had to pick one stressor that is most surprising to students, it’s the tremendous impacts of human noise pollution. Most students just aren’t aware of how noisy humans are and how harmful noise can be, beyond hearing damage from things like rock concerts. For example, a lot of folks don’t realize just how constant the noise from traffic is and how harmful it is for so many different animals, including us. Hearing is crucial for communication and is also really important for avoiding danger, so it’s hard to tune out especially loud sounds, even when we are asleep. The constant sounds of airplanes, sirens, revving motorcycles, leaf blowers and so much more keeps many animals, including us, on high alert, raising heart rate and blood pressure, in addition to harming our ability to hear. Traffic noise is the biggest source of noise in the majority of our rivers and streams and drowns out insect, fish, bird and even mammal sounds. Ship traffic noise is incredibly harmful to marine life, something that a lot of students are not aware of. When animals cannot communicate or detect danger, their populations can suffer over time.

Q: When environmental brain health issues are explained outside of scientific spaces, what tends to be the most difficult to communicate clearly?

Prof. Susman: One key aspect to the ways human environmental stressors impact us and other animals is that exposures early in life can be much more harmful because they affect how our bodies and brains develop. These “organizational” effects can then make us more vulnerable to disease and disability later in life, things like Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s or cancer. It’s a hard concept to wrap your head around, for many folks. It’s hard to come to grips with the idea that diseases like obesity or cancer might well be the result of chemical pollution exposures as an infant or young child. Or that repeated exposures to noise like airplanes or trains near your house might result later in life in hypertension. Most of these types of pollution are invisible and leave no immediate mark, so it’s really hard to connect the dots from a later emerging condition like diabetes to early life exposures like plastic pollution in drinking water.

Q: For students reading this interview, what is one question worth considering more often about the environments we move through every day, whether at home, at school, or in the wider community?

Prof. Susman: Most folks do not consider how their activities impact others, including the nonhumans we share the world with. It would be nice to consider our impacts on others more.

But, perhaps for students reading this interview, I think it’s important to be aware of the ways in which our modern life are affecting our nervous systems. Most of my students haven’t thought about how much light pollution is all around them, or how much noise, or how many different chemicals. It’s not just climate change that we need to address for our health and that of the other life around us. We can do a lot to make living easier for ourselves and those around us by being mindful of things we have lots of control over, like levels of noise, the amount of light at night, the application of pesticides to lawns, the use of plastics, etc. The more folks are aware, the more likely we might be to try to minimize these types of impacts to create a healthier world for us all.

✶ Dr. Susman also added -

One thing that is clear from many years and many studies – almost all of these human-generated stressors are harmful to us and to most other organisms. There are no safe pesticides, no safe plastics, no safe air pollutant. Ultimately, what I think needs the most attention is how do we achieve a modern, safe and convenient life for humans without causing so much harm to ourselves and the rest of the living earth? If we know something is harmful, we need to stop that thing and come up with something safe. Some of the answers are straightforward. For example, noise can be addressed with quieter engines, quieter speeds or times of day/year when noise is minimized. Light pollution can be less harmful by using light that isn’t bright white and by directing light where and when it’s needed rather than everywhere all the time. Industries and operations releasing harmful chemicals into the environment can be held accountable to develop strategies to stop that release. Suburban homeowners can be educated about the harms of pesticide use and the noise of constant lawn equipment. Lawns are for decoration and are not essential. There’s a lot we can do to lessen our impacts that will not greatly affect our way of life.

Thank you, Prof. Susman!

Links:

• Website: https://earthmoves.vassarspaces.net/

• Follow Dr. Kathleen M. Raley-Susman on Linkedln.

  Thank you for reading NeuroKnow! This post is public so feel free to share it.

  Share

  Leave a comment

After sitting for a long while, your brain can start to feel slow and stuck. Focusing becomes more difficult, distractions feel stronger, and even simple work can take more effort than usual. A brisk walk between classes, a few minutes outside, or any small movement break can shift that feeling. Your mind may feel clearer, less crowded, and more ready to start again.

This connects with the earlier Brain Health Basics posts on sleep and stress. Sleep timing helps set your baseline for alertness, while stress can make everything seem overwhelming and harder to manage. Movement adds another part to that picture — it can change your brain’s state in the moment and help your attention recover after too much idleness. This post looks at what movement can realistically do for the brain and how it can fit into everyday student life.

What Movement Changes Most Often

Movement seems to change specific parts of thinking that especially are important during a school day. Research with adolescents links exercise to better attention, executive function, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory. Just a single session of movement can help with processing speed, focus, and blocking distractions, while longer exercise programs are linked with broader improvements over time.

Aerobic movement often showed stronger results in these studies, but the main point is that moving can help your brain feel more prepared to work. Of course, it does not make you instantly smarter. It can give a short-term boost to the skills that help you begin, focus, ignore distractions, and stay with a task.

Taking Active Breaks

One useful suggestion often is overlooked: breaking up long periods of sitting. Much of school life is spent sitting in class, studying, or doing homework, so even short movement breaks can make a difference. Research with adolescents found that brief, repeated activity breaks during long periods of sitting helped support working memory and blood flow patterns connected to thinking. The prefrontal cortex, which helps with planning, focus, and decision-making, requires steady oxygen and energy to work well. This realistically matches what many students feel after standing up, walking around, or moving for a few minutes. The brain can feel a little clearer afterward.

The research on classroom movement breaks is still mixed, however. Movement breaks seem to increase physical activity and can improve on-task behavior, but the effects on grades and thinking skills are less consistent. Some studies do show improvements in attention or math performance, but results vary. The practical part is still useful: interrupting long sitting can be one small way to help your brain stay engaged during a long day.

Subscribe now

Not All Kinds of Movement Are Equal

The kind of movement that one engages in seems to matter. Research suggests that activities requiring both movement and thinking at the same time may help executive function more than repetitive movement alone. These could include team drills, coordination exercises, or activities where you have to follow rules, react, and adjust at the same time. In one classroom study, students who did physically active lessons with a thinking component improved in shifting skills (the ability to switch between tasks or adapt their thinking when the situation changed) and math performance. The aerobic-only group, on the other hand, did not show the same pattern. Other reviews also suggest that cognitively engaging movement can support skills like working memory and inhibitory control.

Intensity is important as well, but its effects could depend on timing. Harder exercise can improve fitness, but it does not always lead to better focus immediately due to physical tiredness. Research indicates that high-intensity training improves brain-boosting proteins like BDNF (which helps with learning and brain changes), but the immediate physical exhaustion can temporarily mask improvements in self-control. Moderate movement often seems more useful for immediate, short-term focus — without causing physical fatigue that could interfere with quick decision-making.

Long-Term Impacts of Movement on the Brain

Over time, regular movement may also be linked with deeper brain changes. Some research in adolescents has found that higher aerobic fitness is connected with better learning on spatial memory tasks and larger volume in the hippocampus (a brain area involved in memory and learning). These findings are interesting, but do not necessarily prove that exercise directly caused those changes.

Other brain-imaging studies suggest that physical activity may be connected to stronger white matter integrity, which helps different parts of the brain communicate more efficiently. At the same time, research in young people is still developing. Some studies show clear benefits, while others are less consistent.

The safest takeaway is that regular movement seems to support brain health over time, especially in areas related to learning, memory, and communication between brain regions. It should be seen as a helpful support for the brain, rather than as a guaranteed way to improve grades or change brain structure. Consistency is key, after all — doing something once may help a little, but continuing over time will result in more measurable outcomes.

Three Practical Tips

1. Try a 10-minute reset before going into intensive work. A brisk walk or any moderate movement can help attention, processing speed, and self-control feel a little stronger before studying or starting a hard assignment.

2. Break up long periods of sitting. During long homework or study sessions, stand up every 30–40 minutes for two or three minutes of simple movement, like walking around or light squats. This kind of short activity break may help the brain stay more ready to focus.

3. Choose one movement that also makes you think. Dance steps, footwork patterns, ball drills, or martial arts forms all involve coordination and decision-making. These types of movement may support task-switching and executive function because the brain has to move and adjust at the same time.

Movement is useful, but it should be kept in perspective. Most studies show small to moderate benefits, and not every thinking skill improves in the same way. Attention, processing speed, and self-control often show clearer effects than grades or test scores. School outcomes are less consistent, although movement breaks can still help students stay more engaged and on task. A quick walk cannot replace enough sleep, lower stress, good nutrition, or a safe environment. Movement is one helpful way to shift your brain’s state in the moment — you can feel more awake, less stuck, and ready to get back to work.

Leave a comment