Editorial: Teaching and Training in Psychophysiology and Neuroscience

Erik M. Benau^*

• State University of New York at Old Westbury, Old Westbury, United States

This special issue was inspired by the growing recognition that neuroscience education and engagement are expanding far beyond traditional lecture halls and laboratory settings (Ramirez, 2020;Ramos & Rivera-Rodriguez, 2022). In the years leading to the proposal of this special issue, researchers and educators took bold steps to integrate neuroscience into K-12 outreach (Chang et al., 2021;Deal et al., 2014), adaptive technologies (Jangwan et al., 2022),sports training (Seidel-Marzi & Ragert, 2020), and inclusive learning environments (Dotson & Duarte, 2020;Harrington, 2022;Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007), among other settings (Eagleman, 2013;Heagerty, 2015). The aim of this special issue was to capture that momentum by assembling and disseminating work that promotes new approaches to training, mentorship, and pedagogy in neuroscience and psychophysiology. More specifically, when this special issue was proposed in 2022, neuroscience education-and education more broadly-was at an inflection point. The academic landscape was still reeling from the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and researchers across disciplines were adapting to new modes of public engagement, digital fatigue, and institutional constraints. Simultaneously, growing movements for equity, accessibility, and inclusion-within neuroscience and beyond-were challenging traditional models of outreach and participation (Dotson & Duarte, 2020;Harrington, 2022;La Scala et al., 2023).Although the acute crises of that period have subsided in some ways, residual effects of that tine continue to shape how we teach, learn, and connect (Imran et al., 2023). Efforts to expand access also face increasing resistance, with some recent gains being rolled back and others encountering outright hostility. In recent months, in early 2025, the United States faced unprecedented cuts to science and education funding in the United States that disproportionately targeted diversity-and inclusion-related initiatives, including training programs. These reductions have already led-or are likely to lead-to the loss of numerous early-career scientists and trainees, many of whom were working in under-resourced or equity-focused settings. The impact of these cuts will likely be felt for years and may slow progress in building a more inclusive and accessible neuroscience community. Nevertheless, the need remains urgent to develop and share innovations in neuroscience education-approaches that support critical thinking, inclusive practice, and public engagement. In this context, the urgency of developing neuroscience education that is both innovative and responsive is ever more apparent. Efforts to support critical thinking, inclusive practice, and public engagement remain essential not only for training future scientists, but for sustaining a field that continues to face social and political pressures.This issue's call for papers welcomed contributions on formal instruction as well as the informal and often under-discussed aspects of training. These included mentorship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and building sustainable research environments. The final collection is more focused than originally envisioned, though this scope offers a certain clarity.Rather than cataloging the full range of emerging practices, the included articles offer snapshots of four key areas: early education and pipeline development, applied performance monitoring, cognitive accessibility, and the role of motivation in learning. Together, these contributions reflect the range of settings in which neuroscience is taught, communicated, and applied today.They also point toward future directions for how neuroscience and psychophysiology may be taught and used. Below, each paper is outlined with its key contributions.