Shadowing Practice: Neuromyths. | All In The Mind - Learn English Speaking with Video

This is the BBC.

This podcast is supported by advertising outside the UK.

Hello, here's a quick quiz for you.

True or false?

We only use 10 % of our brains.

Some of us are left -brained and logical, and others are more right -brained and creative.

Brain training can make us cleverer.

Answers coming up in the next half an hour.

Today, I've come to meet neuroscientists from all over the country

who are getting together to discuss some of the big myths about the brain, why we seem to want to believe that they're true, and why even scientists themselves aren't immune to them.

I'm at the British Neuroscience Association's Christmas Symposium in London, and all day researchers are taking to the stage to tell us which ideas have evidence behind them and which don't.

I'll be catching up with some of them to see what I can learn.

You'll sometimes hear people say they are a left -brained logical type, or a more artistic, touchy -feely, right -brained kind of person.

Staff development courses in businesses might train people to tap into

the right side of their brain to allow them to better access their creative side.

But do we really have a tendency to use one side of the brain a whole lot more than the other?

And if we do, does it actually affect our personality?

Left -handedness comes into it too, and that of course brings up a whole history of myths.

So to set us straight, here's Professor Chris McManus from University College London.

Now, you've spent many years studying left and right -handedness, so let's start with those.

Is it true that left -handers die on average seven years earlier than right -handers?

That is one of the great myths.

It's utterly, completely, totally wrong.

And where's this come from?

It all goes back to a paper published in Nature, the Great Scientific Journal, in 1989, I think it was, which showed some data based on baseball players,

because baseball players, they know whether they bat with the right

or the left hand and he looked at when they were born and how old they were when they died.

And it claimed that the left -handers died much earlier than the right -handers.

Looking at the paper now, the statistics are all over the place.

You couldn't see an effect on a simple statistic.

My undergraduates would have seen the problem.

But they came up with some incredibly complicated statistic, claimed it was significant, and the thing hit the newspapers everywhere.

But it's wrong.

What about left -handers' brains?

Are left -handers' brains different at all?

Finding a statistical signature in the brain of handedness is very hard indeed.

We don't know of anything which, if I show you a scan, will allow you to say that's a right -handed brain or a left -handed brain.

I ran into that in a court case a couple of years ago where somebody was accused of murder.

The pathologist said it must have been done by a left -hander.

The person themselves said they were right -handed

and people wanted a test to find out whether they were truly right -handed

or left -handed and there is none like

that all you can do in the end is what we did

which is to test them on a whole load of things do they do this faster

or slower with this hand or that hand

but there's no signature in the brain that you can look at

and what about the idea that some people are more left -brained

and some people are more right -brained and

that this has an impact on their personalities

and their skills this is this is such a complicated one the first thing is

if you take people are they logical are they intuitive yes

of course people differ this is what we call personality people

have different personalities they do things differently they prefer different things some people like painting other people like programming computers

and so on so there's no doubt

that people differ that's one of the great truths of psychology whether

that relates to the sides of the brain though is another matter we know

that some things are done in different parts of the brain.

I know I'm talking to you with the left half of my brain

because I've had my brain scanned and that's what's doing most of the the work there.

But of course it doesn't mean my right hemisphere is turned off at the moment, it's gone to sleep because I'm talking to you, there's nothing for it to do.

It's doing all sorts of things.

It's looking at you, it's interpreting your emotions, it's trying to decide whether I'm talking too fast, too slow, it's looking at all sorts of things.

So both halves are doing many things but language is mostly in the left hemisphere.

If I look at your face to recognise your expressions, that is mostly in the right hemisphere.

But it doesn't mean we don't use both of them most of the time.

Will it vary between different people though?

Is it true that some people are using their right a bit more

and some people are using their left a bit more?

If you take something like language, some people are very different.

The test I had to see that I was using my left half of my brain for talking, about five to ten percent of people,

it will show that they're using the right half of their brain for talking.

And it's not that you do it a bit of one or the other, you tend to be one or the other.

So there's no doubt there are differences there and that's what makes it so extremely interesting.

Brains aren't all the same.

It's not just that some are slightly bigger or smaller or slightly different shaped.

Some are actually organised very differently to others.

So you might have language mostly using the left side of your brain, or you might have it using the right side of your brain instead.

But would that affect your personality and whether you're logical or intuitive?

As far as we can tell, no. Where you have these things in the brain mostly doesn't seem to affect the way you are.

It's a bit like in a computer.

You can put the processor wherever you like you can change

the shape of the outside box you can do many things but it doesn't change the way the processing is going on.

But what about on courses where people are told

that they're going to be taught how to tap more into their right brain to tap into their creative side?

It may well teach them to be more creative

but it won't do anything to their brain specifically in the right and left hemispheres.

I always talk about

that book by Betty Edwards called Drawing on the right side

of the brain huge bestseller it sold millions over the years it's wonderful

if you actually want to learn to draw better there's nothing

wrong with it it's a way of learning to draw just don't use it to learn neuroscience it's rubbish

so do you think it's more of a metaphor then maybe a useful metaphor

but does it matter then if people are being taught it does it matter

if children are being taught this or

if people learn this on courses it is a metaphor

and it's very useful we need language for describing how we differ that's why we're talking in personality about extroversion

and eroticism and so on we need words for describing how people differ

and this is clearly a way that some people differ

so i don't see any problems there at all the trouble we're talking about somebody being right -brained

100

or left -brained is that it implies

101

that it's fixed you can't override it that's the way you are

102

and at that point it's probably not helpful for somebody to say you're right -brained

103

and then they say well i'll never learn to do maths, will I?

104

So it acts as a block against learning.

105

And most people can learn most things if they try hard enough.

106

Thank you very much, Chris McManus.

107

Pleasure.

108

We mentioned courses taking place in businesses, but there are also some neuromyths getting promoted to a much younger audience,

109

to children in schools, without teachers realising that they're not always based on good evidence.

110

Dr Duncan Astell is from the University of Cambridge.

111

What are some of the worst neuromyths that you've come across being used in schools?

112

Gosh, so some of my favourites.

113

You often hear, well, we only use 5 or 10 or whatever percent of our brains.

114

Very popular one is learning style, so the idea that different children have different brains

115

that learn in different ways and will learn best when the information is delivered in their preferred style.

116

So you'll have your visual learners or your kinesthetic learners or your auditory learners.

117

Because that's a very popular neuromyth for which there's no compelling evidence.

118

So are there no evidence for any of these things?

119

How do they get into schools in the first place then?

120

They get into schools because there's a great demand for interventions to help kids who are struggling at school.

121

And that is then combined with a system where there's no regulation

122

or system of checks and balances to actually test whether any of the claims

123

that are made by these products are true and kind of stack up in terms of the science.

124

So it's that combination of a great demand from families and children and schools with no regulation whatsoever.

125

And I think that provides a very fertile ground for neuromyths.

126

So what sorts of other things are schools paying for?

127

I guess brain gym is the most common one.

128

So brain gym is a series of exercises.

129

It has brain in the title, so you might think that it has a basis in neuroscience.

130

But as a neuroscientist, I can't find any compelling evidence for it.

131

And it's very sketchy whether there's any good evidence that it is effective.

132

It involves exercises like sort of pressing on different parts of the body, the idea that it might boost children's brain power and readiness to learn.

133

And we have been in touch with Brain Gym

134

and they say it's based on the changes that they notice in children before and after they've taken part.

135

So if they're seeing it makes a difference in children, does it matter whether or not it's a scientifically proven method that they're using?

136

Well, I think if schools and families are being asked to pay for a product, then there should be compelling evidence that it works.

137

And anecdotal evidence that people have noticed changes, I don't think is good enough scientific evidence that it does work.

138

So studies need to have proper control groups.

139

The children need to be those for whom the intervention is intended.

140

And it needs to be done by people independent of the people who produce the programme itself.

141

Now, they did also say to us that there are two peer -reviewed studies, both from more than 25 years ago.

142

Would that kind of evidence do?

143

The studies need to be on the groups for whom it's intended.

144

They need to be sufficiently powered.

145

They need to have good active control groups so we can control for things like the placebo effect.

146

And I don't think that those studies have those.

147

And why doesn't this research get done then?

148

These are more than 25 years old.

149

Why isn't this research going on so that people know once and for all, does it work or doesn't it?

150

Well, sometimes the research is done, but then it doesn't get published.

151

because it's hard to publish studies that show null results, even though they are incredibly useful to the wider literature.

152

Also, educational interventions are really hard to run well.

153

They're really hard to get good control groups for, and so it requires a massive investment.

154

And some of these neuromyths have been discussed for a long time now, yet they seem to stick, and they're still being talked about in schools.

155

Why do you think they stick?

156

I think one of the reasons they stick is

157

because they seem like intuitively simple solutions for complex problems it's

158

really hard to study children who are struggling in school

159

and that's because they're a very heterogeneous bunch of individuals

160

so there might be lots of different routes to being a struggling learner

161

so when someone comes in with an intervention that seems very intuitive it seems very simple

162

there's a real allure to it and especially if it's got brain

163

or neuroscience attached to it it gives the impression

164

that it has a foundation in science

165

and i do feel sorry for head teachers in a way

166

because they're not neuroscience researchers

167

so how are they supposed to be able to judge what's good

168

and what's not

169

if they've got people coming in showing them interventions being very very enthusiastic about them then

170

if someone says your kids could do better in your school

171

if you took on this thing then you're going to want to aren't you?

172

I totally agree

173

so in our lab we spend a lot of time heading out to schools helping with teacher training

174

and I think

175

that actually as scientists we need to do a better job

176

of engaging with the education system going through what makes for a good study, what makes for good evidence that might improve your practice and

177

so I think

178

that there's a strong role for scientists to play in helping teachers make decisions about changes that they make in the classroom.

179

And are teachers still being taught this when they do their education degrees?

180

It's hard to know what is in the teacher training

181

but I visit a lot of primary schools

182

and I usually start by going through some neuromyths and

183

when I tell them about something like brain gym for example they all nod sagely.

184

I've yet to go to a primary school in the UK

185

that has not heard of or tried Brain Gym at some point and some still are using it.

186

And what are your rules of thumb for assessing an intervention to work out whether or not it's any good?

187

Firstly, what's the theory behind it?

188

Is there a good theory as to why it might work?

189

Secondly, is there good peer -reviewed evidence that's been conducted by someone independent of the people who created the program itself?

190

Does that research have a good control group ideally an active control group

191

and are the groups the children for whom the intervention is intended

192

and finally is there a good outcome that makes sense so

193

if an intervention is designed to help children read

194

or do maths is that the outcome measure and

195

if it doesn't necessarily work for the reasons that are described

196

but does seem to make a difference you know getting children up

197

and about inactive in the classroom might be a good idea does it matter

198

if it's if it's not you know completely the way they say it happens.

199

I have no problem whatsoever

200

if kids enjoy getting up for five minutes midway through a lesson

201

and getting active and I can well believe that that might help them switch on.

202

The problem is when that's being marketed as a product

203

and being paid for by schools when just the activities that a teacher dreams up could be just as effective.

204

Thank you very much

205

of course some of the myths we believe about the brain

206

go back a very long way take the female brain assumed

207

since at least the 18th century to be different from the male brain

208

and of course not as good smaller fond of pink

209

and naturally no good at reading maps

210

but cordelia fine from the university of melbourne in australia won

211

the royal society science book prize last year for forensically taking

212

apart some of these myths she's joining the conference through the magic of technology

213

so I did the same and she told me

214

while there are sex differences in the brain thanks to genetics

215

and hormonal differences between the sexes the impact isn't quite so straightforward.

216

Every time a scientist reports a sex difference in the brain it seems like it's pointing towards males

217

and females having brains that are ever more divergent

218

but the sex differences

219

that you can see even in non -human animals can depend on the in social environmental conditions

220

that that animal has experienced

221

so the sex difference can depend on having experienced stress for example

222

or particular kinds of housing conditions

223

and sometimes the sex differences in the brain you see can actually reverse depending on what those differences are.

224

So how do these differences add up then if at all?

225

Sex differences in the brain seem to mix up rather than add up

226

if you think of being able to line males

227

and females up on a continuum

228

that goes from the sort of most masculine brain to the

229

most feminine brain rather people have quite idiosyncratic mosaics of you know more male typical

230

and more female features and the second important thing

231

that often gets overlooked is

232

that whenever we find a sex difference in the brain we

233

tend to think okay well what's what difference in behavior is

234

that difference in the brain creating

235

but actually in many ways many animals including humans males and females behave in quite similar ways Please.

236

But they have to do that in bodies that can be different sizes, have different chemicals and hormones running through them.

237

And sometimes sex differences can actually serve to compensate for another sex difference

238

or to cancel each other out in order to enable the two sexes of the species to actually behave the same.

239

So do you have any examples of that in humans or other animals?

240

Well, one, for example, is in a kind of songbird.

241

So songbirds are one of the few animal species where neuroscientists

242

have actually had a real success story in terms of linking genetic and hormonal differences to sex differences in the brain, to sex differences in behavior,

243

which is actually a much harder pathway to plot out than popular writers would have us realize

244

but in many songbirds these links have been made

245

and there's a sort of song control center in the in the male brain

246

and female brain but it's much larger in the male brain

247

and that is the basis of the male's ability to be the songster of the species

248

but there's another canary species called the african weaver bird where there's still

249

that same sex difference in the size of that song control center

250

but in females there's much more gene expression going on in

251

that part of the brain and in fact

252

that genetic sex difference seems to compensate

253

or cancel out the sex difference in the brain size

254

and both males and females sing together in a very similar way

255

so that's an example of where you have two sex differences in the brain

256

but they're actually cancelling each other out to create similarity of behaviour.

257

So do you think when it comes to people have we over exaggerated the differences

258

that there are between men and women based on their brains?

259

Well, one of the real issues in sex differences research, whether you're talking about brains or behavior or trying to link the two,

260

is that there's been quite an issue with false positive results.

261

People are interested in whether men and women are different.

262

And it's very easy and apparently intuitive for researchers to test for sex differences.

263

And the problem here is that if you don't find a difference, then you can often tend not to even report it.

264

And so that similarity kind of disappears, never to be found again.

265

So the research is skewed by what's published and what's not, because if there aren't any results, if you don't find the differences, those non -significant results tend not to get published.

266

That's right.

267

And it's even very difficult to search for sex similarities in research databases.

268

And when you talk to the public about some of the myths there are about differences between male

269

and female brains and where those differences come from

270

and what size those are and how they may be smaller than they think, what sort of reactions do you get?

271

Do you think we want to look for these differences somehow?

272

I suppose in terms of the public reception, you know, one frustrating reaction that one can get is

273

that it's a denial of science to deny

274

that there are sex differences in the brain or that they have fundamental importance for how men and women behave, that it's a sort of form of political correctness.

275

But really the purpose here is to offer people ways of making sense of what is a really complex area

276

and asking important questions about the reliability of findings, the size of findings, the generalizability of findings,

277

thinking in a more sophisticated way about the origins of sex

278

differences in the brain of course in the brain doesn't mean innate what they mean for behavior

279

so you can as I said one sex difference can compensate

280

for another it doesn't necessarily have an impact on behavior

281

and you know thinking in a more knowledgeable way about evolutionary explanations

282

so it's all about giving people tools and information to assess the data themselves.

283

Do you have any favorite myths that you'd like people to know are myths?

284

I think the most important myth to bust is probably a myth peddled by a certain very well -selling book

285

that male brain is is not designed to spot dust

286

spot dust that one's definitely a myth cordelia fine this is all in the mind on bbc radio 4

287

and today we're at the british neuroscience associations annual conference on the topic of neuromyths those stories about the brain

288

that we just can't resist believing dr ann cook is chief executive of the association.

289

Why do these myths persist do you think?

290

I think partly it's because they appeal.

291

There is something appealing about say the 10 % of your brain myth that we only use 10 % of your brain.

292

It's nice to think that we've got another 90 % that

293

if we could tap into we could be anybody we wanted to be.

294

I think sometimes there are a number of alternative hypotheses

295

and one of them turns out to be simpler

296

and easier to understand than the others and perhaps cheaper to implement or even, dare I say it, to market to people.

297

The Mozart effect would be a good one for that.

298

So that was based on a piece of science.

299

It was a hypothesis that listening to Mozart increased the IQ and that was found to be the case.

300

It was actually in adults, not in children.

301

But it was picked up by various people, it was picked up by some policy makers, it was picked up by lots of companies selling Mozart to actually pay to children, even though the study wasn't in children.

302

And there have since been other studies which have shown that is not to the effect.

303

But it's so nice to think about it, isn't it?

304

All I need to do is listen to some Mozart and I will improve my intelligence.

305

Yeah, and other studies since have found that U2 and blur is just as good.

306

So you could have the blur effect and the U2 effect, and that only lasts about 15 minutes anyway, so it's not even very long

307

but some of these myths have been around for a really long time haven't they

308

so I guess you could say

309

that myths about the brain have been since you know time began

310

but they keep arising some of them persist it wasn't till quite recently quite scarily recently

311

that it was thought that babies couldn't feel pain

312

and you know quite invasive procedures would be carried out without anaesthetic

313

because there was this misunderstanding about neuroscience and it's through neuroscience

314

that we now know that isn't the case of course

315

and the used to be thought that autism was caused by the mother's behavior these

316

so -called refrigerator mothers and now a lot of research has shown that obviously isn't the case.

317

I think it's a common thing everyone is fascinated by the

318

brain there's a real appetite for knowing about the brain

319

and the nervous system and that makes perhaps neuroscience especially prone to these myths being perpetuated.

320

Does it matter that it's not true

321

that we only use 10 % of our brains and that lots of people believe that?

322

I think there's a lot to be said for, if it's helpful for someone to actually believe in something, then great, you know, why not?

323

I think it can matter.

324

I do feel quite strongly when vulnerable people are potentially preyed upon by,

325

you know, selling something which purports to be based on science and actually isn't.

326

And I think that exploitative side of neuromyths can be very damaging

327

and I think there can be something damaging about putting people in pigeonholes as well.

328

The kind of classic, the learning styles, which has been shown time and time again to not have any scientific evidence

329

but still children are put into one of a certain type of learning style.

330

You know, pigeonholing people, especially when they're young, can actually be quite limiting so I think that can be damaging too.

331

What is the best way of countering these myths, do you think?

332

Because psychological research shows that myth -busting isn't in fact that effective and that telling people that it's all a myth, which is exactly, I appreciate what I'm doing right now in this programme,

333

doesn't actually change people's minds.

334

What should we do?

335

I think it's important to, although accept that there are these reasons for neuromyths persisting,

336

to continue to put out good information and to really empower people to have access to information through websites,

337

through talks, through being able to talk to scientists directly, through schools, through everyday life you know there's more

338

and more kind of science in shopping centres and things like this

339

so it's really giving people the tools to assess things and question things themselves you know is this real or not.

340

And let me ask you one last thing do you ever

341

find yourself in a social situation where somebody confidently asserts

342

that something about the brain is true that you know to be untrue

343

and have you got some good way of dealing with that?

344

Usually I would start by asking them why they held

345

that belief so trying to understand something of where they're coming from I think

346

if you come in and say no no no that's all wrong

347

and i know more than you and super

348

that doesn't really get you anywhere but people believe things for reasons

349

and sometimes for really good reasons so it's trying to understand where they get

350

that from and then if it's appropriate to kind of pick

351

that apart a bit and to come up with some information

352

that they might not have come across before

353

and then just to kind of let them draw the conclusion as much as possible that's the most effective way

354

That sounds good.

355

You're doing it in a nice way.

356

That's good.

357

I try to be nice.

358

Thank you very much, Anne Cook.

359

Now, before we go, one thing that's been discovered about the brain in recent years is its capacity to change.

360

Neuroplasticity means that it can form new connections throughout life.

361

So how about training your brain to perform better?

362

There are hundreds of brain training games out there.

363

Could they hold the answer?

364

Dr Emma Winnell is from Cardiff University and is talking at the conference today about brain training.

365

So first of all, what is meant by brain training?

366

We really mean repetitively completing tasks that are specially designed to train particular cognitive functions of the brain.

367

And what sort of claims have been made about it?

368

Some people have claims that it can improve memory in people suffering from conditions such as dementia.

369

Across the board, really, in terms of medical conditions, even things like autism, learning disabilities.

370

The claims span a far -reaching field in terms of diseases and also in the healthy population.

371

So some people have claimed that they can improve intelligence, for example, which might be very useful for people thinking of exams and things like that.

372

And how much evidence is there that some brain training games can do something

373

that then tips over into other kinds of skills?

374

So the evidence is mixed.

375

You may play a brain training game that looks at memory.

376

Your memory will likely get better on that game.

377

But will that transfer into your real life?

378

Will that improve your memory and kind of everyday tasks?

379

And there are some studies, although there aren't many, to support what we call transfer effects.

380

So transfer from the computer game into everyday life.

381

And in your research, you've been looking specifically at the very serious condition Huntington's disease.

382

How are you using brain training there?

383

Yes, that's right.

384

So Huntington's disease is a neurodegenerative disease and we are conducting a feasibility study.

385

So we are looking at whether brain training on a computer can be feasible in this patient population

386

because we know that people with Huntington's disease struggle with motivation sometimes

387

and apathy so I'm really interested in whether people are able to play the brain training computer games

388

because Huntington's disease is associated with problems with movement

389

so are people physically able to do it

390

and do they want to do it as well

391

because that's very important there's also a very interesting question about

392

how regularly you might play brain training computer games you know

393

if I were to say to you you'd have to play this game for five hours a day

394

versus ten minutes a day There's that trade -off, isn't there, between the amount of time and energy, resource you put into it versus the benefit that you think you will achieve.

395

And what are you hoping it might do for these patients?

396

If we establish feasibility, and we would have to do that, the brain training games may well help these particular patients.

397

There are other studies in similar conditions, such as Parkinson's disease,

398

which have demonstrated improvements in cognitive function the big question for me is whether the patients in themselves report improvement

399

so we're asking patients whether they feel they've got better in a range of measures including cognitive

400

and movement measures but also we've got some objective tests to see whether they have got better

401

and it's interesting that you're trying it with a condition that's

402

so serious you almost think or something like brain training couldn't possibly make a difference

403

but obviously there's a possibility that it might

404

or you wouldn't be trying certainly and it may well be

405

that it's given as well as drugs

406

or in combination with very much people are prepared to have a go at it

407

and just to see what happens

408

so do you think one day in the future we might go to the doctors

409

and be prescribed video games as part of the kind of treatment we're getting for different conditions i think

410

that we need to broaden our kind of horizons in terms

411

of treatments i think as part of the bigger picture It could be a really useful tool.

412

Well, very best of luck with your research.

413

Thank you very much, Emma Wynel.

414

That is all for our myth -busting from the British Neuroscience Association Christmas Symposium.

415

And it's the last in this series of All in the Mind.

416

Thank you very much for listening and for all your emails and tweets.

417

It's lovely to hear from you.

418

We'll be back in the spring.

419

Thanks for listening to the All in the Mind podcast from the BBC.

420

It's produced in association with The Open University and

421

if you go to the All in the Mind website you'll

422

find links to their work on issues in mental health and social care.

📺 Zelfde Kanaal

✨ Aanbevolen Video

66 zinnen

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

72 zinnen

MRI-Negative Epilepsy

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

201 zinnen

The illusion that broken the internet

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

54 zinnen

Why is walking humans’ superpower? – C1 English Listening Test

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

131 zinnen

The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

119

29 zinnen

The Neuroscience of Creativity

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

259 zinnen

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

318 zinnen

What neuroscience reveals about free will and psychopaths | Sam Harris, Roger Penrose, Sophie Scott

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

118 zinnen

How Language Shapes the Way We Think • Professor Lera Boroditsky • Duocon 2022

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

73 zinnen

Kevin Spacey Breaks Down The Game Theory | 21

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

74 zinnen

The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

48 zinnen

People of Science with Brian Cox - Uta Frith on Alice Lee

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?

Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.

Shadowing-techniek: lees de volledige stap-voor-stap-gids →

Shadowing Practice: Neuromyths. | All In The Mind - Learn English Speaking with Video

Is music getting faster? | 6 Minute English.

Alien Contact. | 6 Minute English.

Odd job interviews. | 6 Minute English.

Alcohol abuse. | British Council-Learn English.

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

MRI-Negative Epilepsy

The illusion that broken the internet

Why is walking humans’ superpower? – C1 English Listening Test

The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown

The Neuroscience of Creativity

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

What neuroscience reveals about free will and psychopaths | Sam Harris, Roger Penrose, Sophie Scott

How Language Shapes the Way We Think • Professor Lera Boroditsky • Duocon 2022

Kevin Spacey Breaks Down The Game Theory | 21

The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth

People of Science with Brian Cox - Uta Frith on Alice Lee

De situatie: Neuromythen en het brein in het Engels

Nuttige chunks en collocaties om te onthouden

Je schaduwspreekt-challenge: Verbeter je engelse uitspraak en vloeiheid

Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?