17 Questions About Neurosciences and Their Answers

Three pounds of wet tissue sits behind your eyes, and right now it’s doing something astonishing: turning marks on a screen into meaning, while also regulating your heartbeat, tracking the hum of the fridge, nursing a faint worry about tomorrow, and quietly deciding whether you need a snack. You don’t feel any of it. That’s the strange part. The organ that produces every sensation, memory and decision you’ve ever had is also the one you can’t directly watch work, which is why so many myths about it have lasted for generations.

Ask a dozen people about the brain and you’ll hear a dozen confident claims. We use only ten percent of it. Some of us are left-brained. Adults can’t grow new brain cells. Dopamine is the pleasure chemical. Most of these ideas contain a seed of truth wrapped in a lot of exaggeration, and a few are flatly wrong. Real neuroscience is odder than the myths and, honestly, more useful: it tells you why sleep matters, why multitasking backfires and why your brain keeps changing for as long as you live. It doesn’t help that brain science reaches us as a string of confident absolutes: “This one habit rewires your brain.” Rarely does the headline say in which species, in how many people, or whether anyone has repeated the result.

So let’s sort fact from folklore.

This guide answers 17 questions about neurosciences, from how many neurons you have to whether free will survives a brain scan, and flags where the science is settled, disputed or still wide open.

What is neuroscience, and how many neurons does the human brain have?

Here are the first two answers. Question 1: What is neuroscience? It’s the scientific study of the nervous system, meaning the brain, spinal cord and the nerves running through the body, and of how they produce behavior, thought and emotion. Question 2: How many neurons are in the brain? Roughly 86 billion, according to the best-known estimate, not the 100 billion you’ll often see quoted.

Neuroscience isn’t one discipline but a family of them. Different branches ask different questions, and they fit together like levels of a map:

• Molecular and cellular neuroscience studies genes, proteins and individual neurons.
• Systems neuroscience asks how circuits, such as those for vision or movement, work together.
• Cognitive and affective neuroscience links brain activity to memory, attention, language and emotion.
• Clinical neuroscience (neurology, psychiatry, neuropsychology) tackles diseases such as stroke, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease and depression.
• Computational neuroscience builds mathematical models of how brains process information.

Now the numbers. For decades, textbooks said the brain contained 100 billion neurons. That figure turned out to be a round estimate with surprisingly little measurement behind it. The neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel devised a method she nicknamed “brain soup”: dissolve brain tissue so that cell membranes disappear, then count the intact nuclei of neurons versus other cells. In 2009 she reported that the average adult human brain has about 86 billion neurons and roughly as many non-neuronal cells such as glia. Her key point was that the human brain is a scaled-up primate brain, not a cellular exception; it simply has a very large number of neurons.

A fair warning, though. A few critics have pointed out that the 86 billion figure rests on a small number of brains, and individual estimates range quite widely (some studies report anywhere from the low 60 billions to the mid 90 billions). So the most careful way to put it is that the human brain has around 86 billion neurons. It’s a good estimate, not a census.

Each neuron connects with thousands of others, producing an almost unimaginable network of synapses, and it’s the pattern of connections, not the neuron count alone, that matters. Neurons communicate through brief electrical impulses called action potentials and through chemical messengers, or neurotransmitters, released across the tiny gaps called synapses.

Think of it like a city. The number of residents matters less than who talks to whom, how fast the roads are, and which neighborhoods are under construction. That living, rewiring network is what the next few questions explore.

Which popular brain myths are false?

Three of the most repeated claims fall apart under scrutiny: that we use 10 percent of our brains, that people are either left-brained or right-brained, and that teaching to someone’s “learning style” improves results. Each persists because it flatters us or sounds neat, not because the evidence supports it.

Question 3: Do we use only 10 percent of our brains? No. Brain imaging shows activity across virtually the whole brain over a day, and damage to almost any region has consequences. The brain is also expensive: it makes up about 2 percent of body weight yet uses roughly a fifth of the body’s energy at rest. Evolution doesn’t maintain a costly organ that sits 90 percent idle. The myth likely traces to misquoted early psychology and self-help hype.

Question 4: Are some people left-brained and others right-brained? Not in the way the pop version claims. Some functions do lean to one hemisphere; language tends to depend more on the left, and certain aspects of attention on the right. But a team led by Jared Nielsen analyzed resting-state brain scans from 1,011 people aged 7 to 29 and found no evidence of a whole-brain “left-brained” or “right-brained” type. Lateralization turned out to be a local, connection-by-connection property, and the two hemispheres work together constantly, linked by millions of fibers.

Question 5: Do learning styles exist? People do have preferences, such as liking diagrams or lectures, but the idea that matching teaching to a person’s preferred “style” (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) improves learning lacks good evidence. A major review led by the psychologist Harold Pashler in 2008 found that the studies needed to support this “meshing” idea were rare, and those that were well designed generally didn’t show the benefit. Content matters more: geometry is better learned visually, music better learned by ear, for everyone.

Meet Priya, an illustrative composite, who decides she’s “a visual learner” and rewrites her notes in colored diagrams all week, ignoring practice tests. The color-coding feels productive. But what actually improves exam performance is retrieval practice, quizzing yourself, and spacing study across days.

Why do such myths stick? They’re simple, they explain individual differences in a satisfying way, and they sell books, workshops and apps. A useful habit is to ask what a study actually measured, in how many people, and whether anyone has replicated it.

Can the adult brain change, and can you grow new neurons?

Yes to the first, with a big asterisk on the second. The adult brain changes throughout life by strengthening, weakening and reorganizing connections, a property called neuroplasticity. Whether adults generate meaningful numbers of new neurons is still disputed.

Question 6: Is the brain plastic in adulthood? Yes. The classic demonstration came from the neuroscientist Eleanor Maguire and colleagues in 2000. They scanned 16 licensed London taxi drivers, who spend years memorizing the city’s labyrinth of streets, and compared them with 50 control participants. The drivers had a larger posterior hippocampus, a region involved in spatial memory, and the more years they’d worked as taxi drivers, the larger it was. Because the study was a snapshot, it couldn’t prove that driving caused growth; people with larger hippocampi might choose or succeed at the job. Follow-up work that tracked trainees before and after the long learning period supported the idea that learning itself changes brain structure.

Plasticity shows up at several levels. Synapses strengthen with use. New connections form and others are pruned. After stroke, nearby regions can sometimes take over lost functions, helped by rehabilitation. Musicians, bilingual speakers and people who learn juggling all show measurable structural differences or changes. The brain is more malleable in childhood, but it never stops adapting.

Question 7: Do adults grow new neurons? This is one of the most contested questions in neuroscience. In rodents, new neurons clearly arise in the adult hippocampus. A 1998 study of cancer patients, who had received a marker that labels dividing cells, suggested the same happens in humans. But a high-profile 2018 study in Nature, examining human brain tissue across ages, reported that hippocampal neurogenesis drops sharply in infancy and is undetectable or extremely rare in adults. Other groups have continued to report evidence for adult-born neurons using different methods. As of now, there’s no consensus, and the honest answer is that if adult human neurogenesis occurs, it’s probably modest.

That matters because popular wellness claims about “growing new brain cells” with supplements, diets or tricks go well beyond what the evidence supports. What’s well established is that you can strengthen and reorganize the brain’s existing circuits, which is arguably the part that matters most for learning and recovery.

Imagine Tom, an illustrative composite, who starts learning the guitar at fifty-two. His fingers feel clumsy for weeks. By month six, chord changes are automatic. Nothing mystical happened. Repeated, focused practice reshaped the circuits connecting his motor, auditory and attention systems.

So the realistic takeaway: you’re never too old to learn, though learning takes more repetition as you age, and you can’t shortcut it.

Why do we sleep, and what is the brain doing when you’re resting?

Sleep appears to do essential maintenance, and a “resting” brain is anything but idle. Question 8: Why do we sleep? Researchers have several overlapping answers: memory consolidation, emotional regulation, energy restoration and waste clearance. Question 9: What does the brain do at rest? It runs its own busy network, the default mode network, linked to self-reflection and mind-wandering.

Start with waste clearance. In a widely cited 2013 study in mice, the researcher Lulu Xie and colleagues, working with the neuroscientist Maiken Nedergaard, found that the space between brain cells expanded by about 60 percent during sleep and that the clearance of metabolites, including beta-amyloid (a protein implicated in Alzheimer’s disease), was roughly twice as fast. This is the basis of the glymphatic system hypothesis. It’s exciting but comes with caveats: the work was in mice, and evidence in humans is still developing, with some researchers questioning how much the mouse findings translate.

Sleep also supports learning. During deep sleep and REM sleep, the brain appears to replay and stabilize recent experiences, transferring them into longer-term storage. Studies consistently show that sleep deprivation harms attention, working memory and mood, and that sleeping after learning improves recall. How exactly this works, and how much sleep any individual needs, are still debated. Most adults function best with seven to nine hours, though there is real individual variation.

Consider Lena, an illustrative composite, who crams until 3 a.m. before a morning presentation and then fumbles the one slide she knew best. Her notes were fine. Her attention and recall were what suffered.

Now the resting brain. In 2001, Marcus Raichle and colleagues described a default mode of brain function. They noticed that a set of regions, including the medial prefrontal cortex and posterior cingulate, became more active when people weren’t focused on a task and quieter when they were. This default mode network is now linked to daydreaming, remembering the past, imagining the future and thinking about other people and yourself. Raichle also stressed that the brain’s energy use changes surprisingly little when it takes on a task, only a few percent above baseline, suggesting that much of its activity is ongoing, intrinsic processing.

What does this mean for daily life? Boredom isn’t wasted time. Mind-wandering appears to support creativity, planning and consolidation, which may explain why solutions sometimes arrive during a shower or a walk. At the same time, excessive rumination, which involves the same network, is associated with depression, so quality of mind-wandering matters.

In short, rest isn’t the brain switching off. It’s the brain switching modes.

Does exercise really help the brain, and how does memory work?

Yes, exercise helps, with moderate but real evidence. Question 10: Does exercise improve brain function? Regular aerobic activity is linked to better memory, mood and brain health. Question 11: How does memory work? It isn’t a recording; it’s a reconstructive process involving encoding, consolidation and retrieval, and forgetting is a normal part of it.

The exercise evidence includes a randomized trial led by Kirk Erickson in 2011. In 120 older adults, one year of moderate aerobic walking, three days a week, increased the volume of the anterior hippocampus by about 2 percent, while a stretching control group saw a decline of about 1.4 percent, and the walkers showed improved spatial memory. The effect sizes were modest, and the study didn’t show that the walkers became cognitively sharper in every domain. Still, it’s one of the clearest demonstrations that lifestyle can influence brain structure in later life. Other studies link exercise to better mood, sleep and executive function, and many researchers believe it helps partly by raising growth factors such as BDNF and by improving blood flow.

Memory works through stages. Encoding is how information first enters; attention matters enormously here, which is one reason distracted learning fails. Consolidation stabilizes the memory over hours to years, with the hippocampus coordinating storage across the cortex. Retrieval brings it back, and each retrieval can slightly modify the memory, a process called reconsolidation. This is why memories can be vivid yet inaccurate, and why eyewitness testimony is fallible.

There are also different systems. Episodic memory stores personal events; semantic memory stores facts; procedural memory stores skills such as riding a bike; and working memory holds a few items in mind for seconds. They rely on partly different circuits, which explains why people with amnesia can often still learn new skills.

Why do we forget? Partly decay, partly interference from similar memories, partly failures of retrieval. Forgetting isn’t a design flaw. It prevents the brain from clogging up with trivia and helps us generalize.

What actually improves memory? Strategies with solid evidence include spaced repetition, retrieval practice (testing yourself), sleep, explaining material in your own words and linking new facts to what you already know. Most commercial “memory boosters,” from supplements to brain-training apps, have weak evidence.

A good test for any claim: has it been shown in a controlled trial, in people like you, with outcomes you care about?

What are emotions made of, and is dopamine the pleasure chemical?

Emotions are patterns of brain and body activity that the brain builds, not simple outputs of a single region, and dopamine is better described as a signal of motivation and learning than of pleasure. Question 12: What are emotions? Question 13: Is dopamine the pleasure chemical? No, it’s more of a “this matters, go get it” signal.

On emotions, the older picture was neat: the amygdala is the fear center, the prefrontal cortex is the rational boss, and the limbic system is the seat of feeling. The modern view is messier. The amygdala is important for detecting and learning about threat and other significant events, but it doesn’t act alone, and many emotions rely on distributed networks involving the insula, anterior cingulate, hypothalamus, brainstem and cortex. Some researchers, including those in the constructionist tradition, argue that emotions aren’t hardwired reactions but are constructed by the brain from bodily signals, past experience and context. Others defend more basic, evolved circuits for emotions such as fear. The debate is live, and for practical purposes, what matters is that emotions involve body, brain and situation together.

Dopamine is the more commonly misunderstood. Pop culture calls it the pleasure molecule, and “dopamine hits” are blamed for everything from phone scrolling to chocolate. The research points elsewhere. In a landmark 1997 paper, Wolfram Schultz and colleagues showed that dopamine neurons in monkeys fire in response to reward prediction errors: they respond strongly when a reward is better than expected, stay flat when it’s exactly as expected and dip when it’s worse. In other words, dopamine helps the brain learn what to pursue, rather than simply signaling that something feels good. Related work suggests it’s tied to motivation and “wanting” more than to “liking.” Pleasure itself seems to involve other systems, including opioid and endocannabinoid signaling.

This has practical implications. Unpredictable rewards, such as notifications, slot machines and social media feeds, can be especially compelling because they produce big prediction errors. That’s not the same as saying you’re “addicted to dopamine.” Addiction involves many systems, including stress circuits and learned habits, and the dopamine story is only one chapter.

Take a person scrolling at midnight, an illustrative composite. They don’t feel joy so much as a restless pull toward the next swipe. That is the wanting system at work.

The simple “chemical” labels, such as serotonin for happiness, oxytocin for love and dopamine for pleasure, make for catchy headlines but poor science. Neurotransmitters do many jobs depending on where and how they act.

Which is why you should be wary of any article, this one included, that reduces your inner life to one molecule.

Do mirror neurons explain empathy, and can you really multitask?

Mirror neurons are real but their grand claims are overstated, and multitasking is mostly rapid switching with costs. Question 14: Do mirror neurons explain empathy? Not on their own. Question 15: Can the brain multitask? Not for demanding tasks, and trying usually makes you slower and more error-prone.

Mirror neurons were discovered in macaque monkeys by a team in Parma led by Giacomo Rizzolatti. In a 1996 paper, they described neurons in premotor cortex that fired both when a monkey performed a goal-directed action, such as grasping, and when it watched someone else perform a similar action. It was a striking finding, and it inspired bold claims: that mirror neurons explain empathy, imitation, language and even autism. The evidence for those leaps is much thinner. Direct recordings of single neurons in humans are rare, and most human evidence comes from imaging that can’t isolate individual cells. Many researchers now think mirror-like activity contributes to action understanding, but that empathy and social cognition involve large networks, not a single cell type.

Multitasking is a more everyday puzzle. Most people believe they can handle email while on a call. But the brain’s attention and executive control systems are limited. When you switch between tasks, you pay a switching cost: time spent reconfiguring goals and rules, plus a lingering carry-over from the previous task. Experiments on task switching show slower responses and more errors after switches, especially with complex tasks. A few combinations work fine, because one task is automatic, such as walking while talking. Two tasks that both demand language or decision-making interfere strongly.

Real-world versions matter. Using a phone while driving, even hands-free, is associated with slower reactions and missed events. In offices, constant interruptions fragment attention and can add up to substantial lost time over a day. Heavy media multitaskers have sometimes performed worse on attention tests, though the direction of cause is unclear: people with weaker attention may simply multitask more.

Ideas for working with your brain rather than against it: batch similar tasks, silence notifications during focused work, schedule short blocks of deep work, and finish one task before opening the next. Write down distracting thoughts so they don’t hijack you.

Think of attention as a spotlight with a small beam. You can swing it around quickly, but you can’t light two rooms at once.

Do we have free will, and what is consciousness?

These two are still open. Question 16: Do we have free will? Neuroscience hasn’t disproved it, though some experiments complicate the everyday picture. Question 17: What is consciousness? It’s your subjective experience, and no one yet agrees on how the brain produces it.

The famous free-will experiment was run by Benjamin Libet and colleagues in 1983. Volunteers made simple finger or wrist movements whenever they felt the urge, and watched a clock to note when they became aware of the intention. Brain recordings showed a slow electrical buildup, the readiness potential, starting about half a second before the movement, while awareness of the urge came only about 200 milliseconds before. Some concluded that the brain “decides” before we do. The result has been intensely debated. Critics point out that the timing of awareness is hard to measure, that the task involved arbitrary movements and not meaningful decisions, and that later research suggests the readiness potential may reflect background fluctuations in neural activity that merely tip a spontaneous choice. So the experiment doesn’t show that free will is an illusion, but it does show that conscious experience of deciding isn’t the whole story.

Philosophers divide further. Some argue that determinism rules out free will, others that free will is compatible with determinism, and others that the question is poorly framed. Neuroscience can inform the debate, for example by showing how much behavior depends on unconscious processes, but it can’t settle it alone. What most people care about, being able to deliberate, weigh reasons and change course, appears intact in healthy adults.

On consciousness, researchers distinguish the “easy” problems (how the brain integrates information, directs attention, reports states) from the “hard” problem (why any of it feels like something). Competing theories include global workspace theory, which holds that consciousness arises when information is broadcast widely across the brain, and integrated information theory, which links consciousness to the degree of integrated causal structure in a system. A recent adversarial collaboration, in which proponents of rival theories agreed in advance on tests, produced results that challenged aspects of both, a healthy sign that the field is willing to be wrong.

Clinically, consciousness research matters. Some patients thought to be in a vegetative state show brain responses to commands in imaging, suggesting hidden awareness, which has changed how clinicians assess and care for them.

For now, the honest summary is that we understand a great deal about what the brain does and much less about why there’s an inner life at all. That isn’t a failure. It’s what an unfinished science looks like.

How can you use brain science in daily life without falling for hype?

Stick to practices with good evidence, such as sleep, exercise, spaced learning and limiting distraction, and treat dramatic claims with suspicion. Real neuroscience gives modest, practical advice, not miracle hacks.

The field is prone to neuromyths, meaning pseudo-scientific brain claims, partly because brain images are persuasive. A colorful scan makes a claim feel more credible even when the underlying logic is shaky. Remember that functional MRI measures blood-oxygen changes as a proxy for activity; it doesn’t read thoughts, and group averages don’t diagnose individuals. Small samples and flexible analyses have produced findings that failed to replicate.

Practical steps that follow from the evidence in this article:

1. Protect sleep. Aim for a regular schedule of roughly seven to nine hours. It supports memory, mood and attention.
2. Move regularly. Brisk walking several times a week is linked to better brain health, with trial evidence in older adults.
3. Study with retrieval and spacing. Quiz yourself and spread sessions across days instead of rereading or highlighting.
4. Single-task when it counts. Silence notifications, block out time for deep work and finish before switching.
5. Keep learning something hard. New skills, such as an instrument or a language, challenge circuits and are good for you, even if they won’t make you “smarter” in general.
6. Be skeptical of one-molecule stories. Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin do many jobs, so claims that hack them with a supplement or app deserve scrutiny.

When you read a headline about a brain study, ask a few quick questions. Was it in humans or mice? How many participants? Did they measure behavior or just brain activity? Has anyone replicated it? Who funded it, and who’s selling something?

Also remember what neuroscience can’t do. It can’t yet read your mind, diagnose most psychiatric conditions from a scan, or explain your personality in a single region. It’s a young science with powerful tools and big gaps, which is exactly what makes it interesting.

If something about your own brain health worries you, such as persistent memory trouble, sudden changes in thinking or mood, severe headaches, or symptoms after a head injury, talk to a primary care doctor (a GP in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) or a neurologist rather than relying on articles or apps. Curiosity is a good start, but evaluation needs a professional.

And if the science is still unsettled in places, say so. It’s one of its better habits.

FAQs about Neurosciences

Is the brain a muscle that you can exercise?

No, the brain isn’t a muscle; it’s made of neurons, glial cells and blood vessels. But the muscle comparison captures something true: use shapes the brain. Practice strengthens specific circuits, and learning a skill can change brain structure, as studies of taxi drivers and musicians show. The analogy breaks down where people expect general “brain strengthening.” Training one skill, such as a memory game, tends to improve that task and transfers poorly to others. Broad benefits come more reliably from sleep, aerobic exercise, social engagement and learning varied, challenging skills over time.

Do brain-training games make you smarter?

Mostly they make you better at the games. Many studies find improvements on trained tasks, but evidence that this transfers to general intelligence or everyday functioning is weak and disputed. Some trials suggest modest benefits for particular groups, such as speed-of-processing training in older adults, but results are mixed and often depend on the quality of the control group. If you enjoy the games, they’re harmless fun. If your goal is to protect your brain, exercise, sleep, social contact and learning real skills have better support.

Does listening to Mozart make babies smarter?

No. The “Mozart effect” grew from a small 1993 study in which college students did slightly better on a spatial reasoning task after listening to a Mozart sonata, and the benefit was brief. Later studies failed to find lasting intelligence gains, and the claim about babies was a leap that the original work never made. Music is valuable in its own right, and learning to play an instrument may support certain skills, but playing classical recordings to infants won’t raise their IQ.

Do men and women have different brains?

On average, there are small differences, such as overall brain volume (which scales with body size), but the overlap between sexes is large and individual brains are a mosaic of features, not neatly “male” or “female.” Studies that looked at many brain features in thousands of people found that very few individuals have all-male or all-female patterns. Behavioral differences between men and women are generally small as well, and shaped by environment and culture. Claims of dramatically different “male” and “female” brains are mostly oversimplifications.

Why do I forget why I walked into a room?

It’s common and almost always normal. Researchers have found that passing through a doorway can act as an event boundary, prompting the brain to file away the previous context, which makes it harder to retrieve what you intended. Distraction plays a part too: if your attention was elsewhere while forming the intention, the memory was weakly encoded. Going back to where the thought began often brings it back. If forgetting becomes frequent, is getting worse, or comes with confusion or getting lost, ask a doctor to check.

Does alcohol kill brain cells?

Not directly in the dramatic way people often imagine, but heavy, long-term drinking harms the brain. Alcohol can damage the connections between neurons and shrink certain brain regions, and chronic misuse can lead to serious conditions such as Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, usually in combination with poor nutrition and thiamine deficiency. Even moderate drinking has been associated with subtle changes in brain structure in some large studies, though the details are still being worked out. Brain recovery is possible after stopping, particularly for people who quit earlier, but some damage may persist.

How much energy does the brain use?

The brain accounts for around 2 percent of body weight but uses roughly 20 percent of the body’s resting energy, mostly to power the signaling between neurons. Thinking hard adds only a small amount on top of that baseline, which is one reason a difficult exam doesn’t burn many extra calories. Most of the cost is maintaining the constant background activity of the brain. This high energy demand helps explain why the brain is so vulnerable to interruptions of blood flow or oxygen.

At what age is the brain fully developed?

The common answer is the mid-20s, but that’s a rough guide and not a hard line. The prefrontal cortex, which supports planning and impulse control, matures later than regions handling sensation and movement, and structural maturation continues into the twenties. But the brain keeps changing throughout life, and “fully developed” can be misleading. Different abilities peak at different ages, and some, like vocabulary and certain kinds of judgment, continue to improve into later adulthood. Development isn’t a switch that flips on a birthday.

Bibliography

• Erickson, K. I., Voss, M. W., Prakash, R. S., Basak, C., Szabo, A., Chaddock, L., Kim, J. S., Heo, S., Alves, H., White, S. M., Wojcicki, T. R., Mailey, E., Vieira, V. J., Martin, S. A., Pence, B. D., Woods, J. A., McAuley, E., & Kramer, A. F. (2011). Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 3017-3022.
• Herculano-Houzel, S. (2009). The human brain in numbers: A linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, Article 31.
• Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(3), 623-642.
• Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8), 4398-4403.
• Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71275.
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
• Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676-682.
• Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131-141.
• Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593-1599.
• Xie, L., Kang, H., Xu, Q., Chen, M. J., Liao, Y., Thiyagarajan, M., O’Donnell, J., Christensen, D. J., Nicholson, C., Iliff, J. J., Takano, T., Deane, R., & Nedergaard, M. (2013). Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain. Science, 342(6156), 373-377.