Can Neurotechnology Enhance Our Learning?

Rethinking Learning Support

When we find learning hard, especially in subjects like maths, we often focus on the environment. Maybe individuals did not have good teachers, or perhaps they were not motivated. But research is now showing that our biology, such as how our brain works, also plays a big part in how well we learn.

Over the past years, more scientists have become interested in ways to help the brain work better, which is called cognitive enhancement. One area showing real promise is the development of new types of brain stimulation that are safe, painless, and do not need surgery or medication.

At the University of Surrey, my lab studies a type of brain stimulation called transcranial random noise stimulation, or tRNS. This involves placing small electrodes on the head and sending a gentle electrical signal into the brain. It does not hurt. We have tested it on more than 3,000 people—including children with ADHD or learning difficulties, and adults with or without ADHD—and the side effects are no different from those seen with fake or “placebo” treatments. Learning can sometimes be a painful experience, but tRNS itself is not.

We use tRNS to explore how changing brain activity in certain areas might improve things like learning and attention. Here, we focus on how it helps people without diagnosed learning problems.

A Boost for the Brain

In a recent study, we looked at what happens when young adults use tRNS while doing a maths training programme. We have already shown that tRNS works well when aimed at a part of the brain, called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, that helps with focus and memory. It was especially helpful for people whose brains have weaker connections between the brain regions used for math. These kinds of brain differences are linked to weaker maths skills.

Importantly, these effects were not random. Brain scans revealed that stimulation particularly benefited people who, due to their biology, might otherwise struggle to keep up. These individuals showed significant gains in solving complex math problems after a few days of training with tRNS. This builds on our earlier work, which found that tRNS increases a brain signal linked to neuroplasticity—our brain’s ability to adapt and learn from experience. Interestingly, those with the lowest levels of this signal saw the biggest improvements. This technology gave their brains a gentle boost and whispered, “You’ve got this.” Or perhaps more accurately, it gave their neurons a polite tap on the shoulder and said, “Time to shine.”

Fairer Chances for All?

This work builds on a growing body of research showing that biology—not just environmental factors such as teaching or home life—shapes our ability to learn. It also opens up new ways to think about fairness in education. If some learners are more likely to struggle because of how their brains work, should we not support them with tools that directly address these disadvantages?

At the same time, this raises important ethical questions that must be considered to ensure the safe and fair translation of scientific findings. For example, should children who are not classified as having learning difficulties be allowed to access this technology? And how do we ensure fair access for young adults who might use it to perform better in exams, thrive in higher education, or access career opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach—or just a bit more achievable—with even a small cognitive edge?

By shifting our focus from solely modifying environmental factors, like classroom design or teaching methods, to also addressing individual biological constraints, we might be able to reduce gaps in education. This is important as these gaps are also associated with long-term inequalities in income, health, and well-being.

This is also important because of something called the Matthew Effect in education. It means that people who start with an advantage often keep moving ahead, while others fall further behind. This type of technology may help level the playing field by giving more learners a fairer starting point.

Our findings suggest that people who are already doing extremely well—like professional mathematicians or a mental calculation world champion—do not benefit from tRNS. In contrast, those who are below average, or even above average but not exceptional, show significant improvement. A large portion of our studies have been conducted with Oxford University students, who tend to have strong maths skills (even if some might claim not quite Cambridge strong). These results suggest that approaches like tRNS are unlikely to widen the cognitive gap in society, and may help to close it.

From the Lab to Everyday Life

So far, most of our work has taken place in labs. But now, we are testing how this can work outside the lab. Our team is running studies where people use tRNS at home to improve their performance. This is an exciting step. It could bring brain-based learning tools into classrooms and homes—making support more personal, flexible, and fair.

Education Essential Reads

The Hidden Struggles of Inclusive Classrooms

Dyslexia Led Steven Spielberg to Make Movies

About the Author
Roi Cohen Kadosh, Ph.D., is the head of the School of Psychology and professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Surrey. He is also the founder of Cognite Neurotechnology. His research combines psychological and biological tools to better understand how children and adults think and learn, and ways to enhance these abilities—primarily through neurotechnology. And yes—he has tested tRNS on himself.