Artificial Intelligence (AI) and neuroscience

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and neuroscience

artificial intelligence (AI) and neuroscience

The most important advances between AI and neuroscience are the development of artificial neural networks and deep learning. These models are inspired by the biological structure and functioning of the human brain. They are capable of processing large amounts of data, learning patterns, and making predictions. Artificial neural networks are not yet capable of simulating the full complexity of the human brain. However, they have provided valuable insight into the principles governing neural processing.

The convergence of AI and neuroscience provides opportunities to unlock the secrets of the human brain. Advances in AI-powered neural networks, brain-computer interfaces, and connectomics have already generated valuable insights. As we continue to explore this fascinating frontier, the ethical implications of our work need to be considered for a responsible approach.

videogames and learning

videogames and learning

videogames and learning

The brain is a plastic organ. It changes spontaneously and adapts to its environment generating new connections between the billions of neurons that make it up. Roberto Colom, Professor of Psychology at the Autonoma University of Madrid, and María Ángeles Quiroga, Professor of Psychology at the Complutense University of Madrid, have carried out a pioneering study to understand how these changes occur after solving the puzzles of the Series of Nintendo videogames Professor Layton.

Video of the program realized by the team of Grupo Punset Producciones in which Roberto Colom and María Ángeles Quiroga talk with Eduard Punset about the effects that they have observed in the brain of the participants in their investigations after solving the problems of Professor Layton.

didactics in neuroscience

didactics in neuroscience

didactics in neuroscience

In the field of Educational Sciences (Psychology and Pedagogy) arises neurodidactic as a new discipline whose objective aims to improve teaching and learning processes.

The so-called neurosciences allow us at present to get closer to knowing more of the brain as a moldable organ, which can be reorganized in a structural and functional way adapting itself to learning.

Learning processes, considered by neuroscientists as brain processes, are susceptible to (meta) cognition or attention to our own cognition. Asking ourselves about what we do (breathing, body posture …) what we feel (emotions, moods) or what we think (internal or external verbalizations) directs attention to our own cognitive processes.

The plastic characteristic of the brain, which allows us to generate new neurons and connections, must lead us to understand intelligence as a dynamic construct, in which relevant emotional factors such as motivation or self-control influence, in such a way that processes such as attention and Working memory play a major role in active learning.

At present we know that learning achievements depend largely on curiosity and this increases to the extent that these achievements are adequate, in addition to prior knowledge, to the ability to care.

There are studies that show that attention and self-control can be improved at an early age (Petersen and Posner, 2012) and that practice sessions for the improvement of care are short (Rueda et al., 2005).

Attention is studied as a limited resource, and this suggests the need to split the class into blocks of ten or fifteen minutes: “And as we remember more what we learn at the beginning and at the end of the tasks (effect of primacy and recency ), The beginning of the class should be used to analyze the most important questions or to raise that challenge that arouses the necessary curiosity of the students, whereas, in the last minutes, the student should perform some task that allows him to synthesize the most Relevant analyzed “(Guillén, 2015).

The work on the above-mentioned attentional processes, in the mode of contemplative techniques (Matthieu et al., 2015), can be carried out with the entire educational population adapted to the ages. If we understand that the attention deficit is susceptible and depends on the internal and external situation of every individual, beyond labels, we can analyze attention in terms of levels and direct this work to the motivational aspects of each one.

– Guillén J. C. (2015): “El sueño: una dulce necesidad cerebral”. En Neuromitos en educación: el aprendizaje desde la neurociencia. Barcelona, Plataforma Editorial.

– Matthieu R., Lutz A., Davidson R. (2015): “Neurociencia de la meditación: efectos cerebrales y psicológicos de las prácticas contemplativas”. Investigación y Ciencia (450).

– Petersen S. E., Posner M. I. (2012): ”The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after”. Annual Review of Neuroscience 35(1), 73–89.

– Rueda M. R. et al. (2005): “Training, maturation and genetic influences on the development of executive attention”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 14931-14936.

neuromythes and professorship

neuromythes and professorship

neuromythes and professorship

The good image of neuroscience and the gap that exists between researchers and teachers has facilitated the rapid proliferation in schools of so-called neuromytes, or misconceptions about the brain (Goswami, 2006, Howard-Jones, 2014).

Several studies in diverse countries have confirmed that neuromytes are popular among teachers (eg, Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones and Jolles, 2012). The last of these studies has been carried out in Spain with a sample of 284 teachers from 15 autonomous communities belonging to the stages between Infant and Bachillerato (Ferrero, Garaizar and Vadillo, 2016). For this purpose, an online questionnaire was used with 32 items, 12 on neuromytes and 19 on general questions about the brain (see Table 1). The results showed that Spanish teachers, like the rest of the countries studied, consider correct a high number of myths about the brain and education. Specifically, the neuromitos that have shown a higher prevalence are (1) “environments that are rich in stimuli improve the brains of preschool children”, accepted as valid by 94% of the teaching staff; (2) “people learn best when they receive information in their preferred learning style,” accepted by 91.1% of faculty; And (3) “exercises that promote the coordination of perceptual-motor skills can improve literacy skills,” accepted by 82% of faculty.

The first statement is an excessive generalization of basic laboratory studies in which animals exposed to extreme sensory deprivation show cognitive deficits. However, there is no evidence that these results are of practical relevance for children in normal school settings. The second assertion is also false, since in the studies where the teacher’s way of teaching students’ learning styles (eg, active / reflexive, convergent / divergent) has not been improved Learning (Rohrer and Pashler, 2012). The latter case refers to the belief that exercises such as crawling or crawling can improve the ability to understand or elaborate messages. However, there is strong evidence for the inefficiency of the exercises described above in improving higher order processes such as reading and writing (Hyatt, Stephenson and Carter, 2009). It is very interesting that, among the factors that predict the belief in neuromitos on the part of the professors include to have a greater knowledge on the brain and to read magazines of educational diffusion (whereas to read scientific journals reduces the belief in neuromitos).


– Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.

– Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. (2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-cultural variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 496.

– Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406-413.

– Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817-824.

– Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain Gym: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial and Special Education, 28, 117-124.

– Hyatt, K. J., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 313-342

– Proyecto NeuroEducacióN en Educación Infantil (n.d.). Disponible en: proyectoneuroeducacion/course/view.php?id=35

– Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46, 630-635.