The different ways of doing science communication

During my time as a PhD student, I became interested in blogging in order to communicate neuroscientific insights from research on language acquisition and processing and share them with a larger audience. I therefore created my first blog on 'Neuroscience of Speech Perception'. Later I found a more interactive way of doing science communication when as part of the Brunel Postgrad&Research Society (BPRS), which I had created, I founded Brunel's first postgrad radio show 'Academic Brunel' by joining the Media Association Society.

Outside the Brunel Radio Studio.

This show allowed me to broadcast postgraduates' insights into their subjects to more people than would have been possible via a regular BPRS meeting. The show ran from January 2015 to June 2015, and was nominated for 'Best Academic Radio Show' by the annual Society & Media award show organised by the Union of Brunel Students.

Members of the Media Association Society.

                           

Each show was structured into three sections. In the first section I would communicate research news from around the world, which I would express in different languages. In addition to English, news could also be broadcasted in Spanish, French, German, or Italian. The second section was the interactive part, in which I would have a guest, who would normally be a research student with interest in sharing their research topic and progress with the audience. This section would therefore take the shape of an interview. The third section would consist of me talking on a certain issue from a critical point of view in form of a monologue.

Article on the first postgrad radio show at Brunel in the student newspaper 'Le Nurb'.

With this type of science communication I literally gave research students a voice through which research students could become vocal about any matters that were relevant to them and, which would help the audience understand how their research is important and can make a difference. The music played between each segment was eclectic in nature as it included various genres of music such as opera, folk, alternative and electronic rock, classical music, punk and live instrumental music from my instrument that is the Veena.

Inside the Brunel Radio Studio.

On different occasions I would have different societies be guest during the second segment, in which they would tell everyone what their society was about, and promote their activities. During special weeks I would organise unique collaborations between societies. Specifically, during the celebration of 'Go Green' Week, for example, we extended the show by an hour to a two-hour 'Go Green' Week special. It featured for the first time a live debate. The motion was “This House believes that climate change is a myth” and represented a collaboration between the BPRS that I was president of, and the Brunel Debating Society, of which I was immediate past president.

After the live debate during 'Go Green' Week.

Apart from doing science communication online or live on air, I later got the opportunity to work with like-minded people on science communication by founding the 'Bright Brains' newsletter, which would appear in print as part of the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) Bulletin. The motivation behind me founding 'Bright Brains' was to show the BNA how to listen to its young members and give them a voice. It was essential to me that the BNA Bulletin appropriately represented the views and insights of BNA student members from different regions of the UK as well as from different fields within Neuroscience. With 'Bright Brains' I aimed to illustrate how this could be achieved via a student-led support system for students and with students. To me it was therefore a truly special experience when I saw the BNA embrace an idea that I had as a student and turn it into a reality. This was the beginning of the 'Bright Brains' newsletter with me as the founding editor-in-chief.

The 'Bright Brains' logo.

Now nearly half a decade later I am proud to say that 'Bright Brains' has become a very popular feature within the Bulletin, and has so far produced a total of 112 print articles, 54 online articles with the help of 83 contributors as writers, 74 as editors and 50 involved in design and production. I can therefore now confidently say that ‘Bright Brains’ has visibly shown the BNA by example how to help students become vocal about their views, and how the BNA can continue to support its young members in the near future. With that in mind, it is clear that the mission of ‘Bright Brains’ has been accomplished.

The success of ‘Bright Brains’ shows that the BNA does listen to its student members and I am sure that the organisation will continue to do so in the future. Specifically, I am proud to say that the BNA will continue in their bulletin to have a student section that I proposed, and that ‘Bright Brains’ paved the way to the new student section called ‘Brain Insights’ that is now managed by a group of editors who are currently studying neuroscience. By continuing the student section the BNA is clearly heading in the right direction, and has recognised hereby the importance of not only its young members’ contributions but also the relevance of science communication, and the role it plays in positioning Neuroscience as a science that can help change lives for the better. 'Bright Brains' is a good example of how science communication can have everyone in a country involved.

An example of the first two pages of the 'Bright Brains' Newsletter.

Is there a way through which anyone with no student background could get involved in and contribute to science communication? The answer is YES! With unique ideas such as Neuropoetry it is possible to engage those in science communication who are not currently in school or university or professionally involved in science. I recently did a couple of neuropoetry workshops at charities based on my book 'Multilingual Neuropoetry'. One of them was at Headway East London at which attendees got to share information about their neurological conditions with others while learning about poetry at the same time. Based on the poetry and neuroscience-related material that I provided during the neuropoetry workshop they then did create and recite their own poetry about the brain and the mind. Such events can also be held at other public places such as libraries and bookshops. On National Poetry Day, it was, for example, my pleasure to recite from 'Multilingual Neuropoetry' at the Brook's bookshop in Pinner.

Reciting from my book 'Multilingual Neuropoetry' at Brook's bookshop during National Poetry Day.

With the help of Neuropoetry therefore science communication can reach all kinds of people, and with multilingual neuropoetry it will be possible to enthuse an international audience all over the world about the mind and the brain. If you are interested in holding a neuropoetry workshop near you, please get in touch! It is thus clear that science communication can take on different shapes and forms, and it is up to you to choose the one that works for you!

National Poetry Day

To celebrate National Poetry Day on 3rd October, the Brook's bookshop in Pinner, Harrow, is holding a poetry event at which talented poets will be performing different types of poetry, one of which is Neuropoetry. The event takes place between 19:00-20:15 at 44-46 Bridge Street, HA5 3JF. The entry to the event is free. All are welcome!

Neuropoetry explained

This summer I had the chance to explain the idea of neuropoetry in the Phenotype magazine in their TT19 issue. I specifically pointed out how poetry and neuroscience are linked, and highlighted the intellectual advantages that come with the mental stimulation associated with writing poetry. Check out page 26 for more information on how you can discover the neuropoet within you!

Das Erlernen von Sprachen

Was ist eine Tatsache das wir mit Sicherheit über die Menscheit sagen können? Das ein großer Teil mehr als nur eine Sprache spricht. Unsere Sprachwahrnehmungsfähigkeiten gehen eine binäre Veränderung am Ende des ersten Lebenjahres durch den unsere Fähigkeit zwischen fremdsprachlichen Kontrasten zu unterscheiden nimmt ab. Die Frage, die sich deshalb stellt, ist welche Konsequenz ein zweisprachiger oder bilingualer Kontext auf eine gewöhnliche phonetische Entwicklung hätte. Würde die Folge anders sein abhängig davon ob ein Kind eine zweite Sprache zur selben Zeit lernt wie die erste Sprache, oder kurz nach dem Erlernen der ersten Sprache?

Zweisprachler, die zwei Sprachen von Geburt an lernen, werden als simultane bilinguale bezeichnet (Meisel, 1989). Simultane Bilinguale unterscheiden sich von solchen Bilingualen, die ihre zweite Sprache lernen nachdem sie ihr lexikalisches und phonologisches Wissen ihrer ersten Sprache schon teilweise etabliert haben. Diese Bilinguale werden sequentielle Bilinguale genannt. Beim sequentiellem Bilingualismus gibt es einen Transfer von der ersten auf die zweite Sprache während beim simultanem Bilingualismus beide Sprachen sich unabhänging von einander entwickeln (deHouwer, 2005; Meisel, 1989, 2001).

Weil Kinder ihre Empfindsamkeit für fremdsprachige Sprachlaute am Ende ihres ersten Jahres verlieren, müssen Kinder mit sequentiellen Bilingualismus beim Lernen einer zweiten Sprache, ihre Empfindsamkeit für diese fremdsprachliche phonetische Laute, einschließlich der Laute in der zweiten Sprache, wiedergewinnen. Wenn zum Beispiel ein Kind mit Japanisch als erste Sprache Deutsch als zweite Sprache lernt, dann muss das Kind den wahrnehmlichen Unterschied zwischen den Lauten /r/ and /l/ lernen. Im Gegensatz zum Deutschen, gehören diese Laute im Japanischen zur selben phonetischen Katgorie (Goto, 1971; Miyawaki et al., 1975). Auf diese Art werden die Kinder die Laute /l/ and /r/ voneinander unterscheiden können.

Wie sieht die Situation bei simultanen Bilingualen aus, die seit Geburt in einer bilingualen Umwelt aufgewachsen sind? Einer Studie zufolge können Kinder phonetische Kategorien und Kontraste kreieren und erlernen, weil sie sensitiv darauf sind wie die phonetische Elemente statistisch im sprachlichen System verteilt sind (Maye, Werke & Gerken, 2002). Was ist dessen Effekt auf Kinder, die in einer bilingualen Umwelt aufwuchsen? Wenn die Rolle der fortgesetzten Aussetzung zu diesen Kontrasten in beiden Sprachen weitergeführt wird, würde das bedeuten das beim Alter von 8 Monaten Kinder als simultane Bilinguale zwei phonetische phonetische Kategories kreieren würden.

Eine Überschneidung von zwei Kontrasten in einer Sprache und einem Sprachlaut in der anderen Sprache, das akustisch ein Zwischenlaut bildet, könnte eine einzige, verlängerte phonetische Kategorie in dem simultanen Bilingualen ergeben, die alle drei Sprachlaute umfasst (Bosch&Sebastian-Galles, 2003a,b). Dies würde es dem simultanen Bilingualen erschweren sich zwischen diesen Lauten zu unterscheiden.

Dies würde auch bedeuten, verglichen zu den Wahrnehmungsfähigkeiten von einsprachigen Kindern, dass die Fähigkeit von simultanen bilingualen Kindern sprach-spezifische Kontraste zu kreieren durch diese sprachübergreifende Überschneidung von Sprachlauten verzögert wird. Forscher haben vorhergesagt, dass der Grad zu welchem die Sprachlaute in beiden Sprachen vorkommt dem Effekt dieser Verzögerung auf das Unterscheidungsvermögen der Kinder entgegenwirken könnte (Sundara et al., 2008). Die Forscher verglichen das Vermögen von einsprachigen Englischen Kindern, einsprachigen Französischen Kindern, und zweisprachigen Kindern die Beispiele von dem Laut /d/ im Englischen und Französischen zu unterscheiden. 

Sie fanden heraus, dass aufgrund der Häufigkeit in welcher diese spezifischen Sprachlaute vorkamen, sowohl einsprachige Englische Kinder als auch zweisprachige Französisch-Englische Kinder im Alter von 10-12 Monaten die unterschiedlichen Beispielen von /d/ im Französischen und Englischen voneinander unterscheiden konnten. Dies wurde beobachtet trotz sprachübergreifenden Überschneidungen (Sundara et al., 2008). Diese Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Häufigkeit in der Sprachlaute von phonetischen Kategorien beim wirklichem Sprechen vorkommen, bestimmt ob für einen spezifischen phonetischen Kontrast, Zweisprachler einen anderen Entwicklungsweg aufschlagen als Einsprachler in der Kontrollgruppe.

Neuropoetry event at Barbican Library

What an honour it was to share the idea of neuropoetry and discuss it with like-minded people at my neuropoetry talk at Barbican Library. For photos of the practical hands-on neuropoetry session that followed my talk, please check out the official facebook page for Neuropoetry, and the recent post that was made on LinkedIn.

Barbican Library event

Neural processes underlying second language (L2) acquisition

Language. It is the tool that we use to solve problems and advance culture through communicating knowledge, teaching and learning from others. What happens when we first learn a language? Early in life we appear to be able to differentiate between virtually all phonetic units in the languages of the world (1).

However, around the age of nine months, the infant brain adjusts to the continual exposure of the native language (L1) (2). Furthermore, after puberty there is an obvious decrease in the ability of an individual to acquire native-like proficiency of a second language (L2). The continuous process of neural commitment to the L1-specific speech patterns experienced early in life could account for the corresponding decrease in the ability to acquire another language later on in life (3).

For example, cross-sectional studies showed that while 6-8 months old English infants were able to distinguish between two Hindi consonant sounds to the same level as native Hindi adults, 10-12 months old infants had difficulty with this task. This result was also replicated when assessing vowel sounds (4, 5).

Does this mean that learning L2 later in life will limit your ability to attain native-like proficiency, and become fluent? Luckily, the answer appears to be no! Published findings found that some individuals who started learning L2 later in life reached native fluency. However, the alternative was also true; learning L2 early in life did not guarantee fluency (6, 7, 8). For example, a study, which compared the grammatical judgment of native English speakers, with that of Vietnamese people who had learned English early in life, found no difference in performance between groups (9). Despite this, the Vietnamese early learners of English also appeared to retain their native accent, which could thus be argued as not reaching native-like proficiency in the English language. One can therefore say that early exposure to a second language will not guarantee native-like proficiency.

In another study, native English speakers were asked to rate the English accent of speech samples that had been produced by Dutch individuals who started learning English around 12 years of age (8). Approximately half of the Dutch cohort was mistaken for native English speakers, suggesting that it is possible for late L2 learners to attain pronunciation akin to native speakers. This finding was further supported by a study in which individuals from all over the world (Russia, Bulgaria, USA to name a few) were assessed on their Hebrew accent. The study found that the age at which individuals learnt L2 (in this case Hebrew) was not directly correlated to perceived native-like accent (10). Thus, an early start in learning L2 is not a prerequisite in acquiring unaccented speech.

There is also physiological evidence, which has been published to support this concept. A group of adult participants were trained on an artificial language, and exhibited a similar pattern of brain activity to that observed in native speakers when they process their first language (11). Furthermore, there appeared to be little difference in brain activity when a syntactic violation, or language error, was processed. Both groups exhibited a double peak of brain activity, termed early negativity and late positivity (N400 and P600), when a syntactic error was encountered. Essentially, the automatic detection and correction of such errors during language processing, is similar between native speakers and L2 individuals.

This indicates that both early and late learners of a language make use of the same brain mechanisms during the processing of language. Further supporting evidence is provided by other event-related brain-potential (ERP) studies. It has been shown that both the brain areas activated (15), and ERP patterns evoked in fluent L2 users, are largely observed in native speakers as well (12, 13). Difference in these parameters were revealed, however, when native and non-proficient speakers’ processing was compared (14, 16).

The evidence that we retain our ability to learn speech in different languages over the course of life is good news for all of us who recently thought of taking up a second language. No matter your age, or which language you are hoping to learn, you can become a fluent L2 speaker if the ideal learning environment is created. Thus, when you train yourself intensively in perceiving and producing the sounds of the second language, show the motivation and enthusiasm to sound native-like, along with massive L2 exposure, it will be possible for you to achieve your aim of becoming a fluent L2 speaker.

References

1. Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 979-1000.

2. Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language, Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

3. Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition, Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831-843.

4. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (. (1984a). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49-63.

5. Werker, J. F., & Lalonde, C. E. (1988). Developmental Psychology, 24, 672-683.

6. Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

7. Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56, 9-48.

8. Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The ease of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp.133-149). Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum.

9. McDonald, J.L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395-423.

10. Abu-Rabia, S., & Kehat, S. (2004). The critical period for second language pronunciation: Is there such a thing? Ten case studies of late starters who attained a native-like Hebrew accent. Educational Psychology, 24, 77-98.

11. Friederici, A.D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 529-534.

12. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123-141.

13. Steinhauer, K., White, E.J., & Drury, J. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13-41.

14. Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212-1228.

15. Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Sebastian-Galles, N., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., et al. (1998). The bilingual brain: Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121, 1841-1852.

16. Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., et al. (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second language. NeuroReport, 8, 3809-3815.