This Research Topic was inspired by the growing recognition that neuroscience education and engagement are extending well beyond the confines of traditional lecture halls and laboratories (Ramirez, 2020; Ramos and Rivera-Rodriguez, 2022). In the years leading to the proposal of this Research Topic, 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 and Ragert, 2020), and inclusive learning environments (Dotson and Duarte, 2020; Harrington, 2022; Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007), among other areas (Eagleman, 2013; Heagerty, 2015). The aim of this Research Topic 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 Research Topic 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 and Duarte, 2020; Harrington, 2022; La Scala et al., 2023).

Although the acute crises of that period have subsided in some ways, the residual effects of that time 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 that disproportionately targeted diversity- and inclusion-related initiatives, including training programs. These reductions have already led—or may soon lead—to the displacement of numerous early-career scientists and trainees, many of whom work in under-resourced or equity-focused settings. These are the very individuals this Research Topic was intended to support; their uncertain futures speak to the urgency of continued investment in inclusive neuroscience training. 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 also for sustaining a field that continues to face social and political pressures.

This Research Topic's call for studies welcomed contributions on formal instruction, along with informal and often under-discussed aspects of training. These include mentorship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and building sustainable research environments. The final Research Topic 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 insights into four key areas: early education and pipeline development, applied performance monitoring, cognitive accessibility, and the role of motivation in learning. These four contributions highlight the breadth of contexts in which neuroscience and psychophysiology are taught, applied, and communicated. They also point toward future directions for how neuroscience and psychophysiology may be taught and used. Below, each article is outlined with its key contributions.