Retrospective: Four Inspiring Journeys into the Brain at Oxford’s Centre for the Creative Brain

The evening opened with drinks and nibbles, before diving into four engaging talks—each focused on a different sense.

Sight – Prof Holly Bridge (University of Oxford)
Holly kicked off the evening with a clever visual illusion: static dots over a grey field that seemed to move if you stared long enough. She unpacked the science behind it, exploring why our brain is so eager to find motion where there is none. Her talk dove into the cognitive shortcuts our brains use to create coherent visual experiences from incomplete data. We left with a deeper appreciation for just how much guesswork goes into seeing.

Sound – Prof Andrew King (University of Oxford)
Andrew followed with a deep dive into the mechanics of hearing, starting with the basics: sound is vibration. These vibrations are amplified by tiny bones in the middle ear and sent to the fluid-filled cochlea, where hair cells tuned to different frequencies convert them into electrical signals. These signals travel via the auditory nerve to the brain, where the auditory cortex decodes pitch, rhythm, and tone—layering them with memory and emotion to give the sound meaning. His talk brought clarity a complex sense we often take for granted.

Touch – Dr Natalie Bowling (University of Greenwich)
Natalie’s talk brought the emotional dimension of touch into focus. She opened with a poignant example: during the COVID-19 pandemic, a care home in Brazil built a “hug tunnel” so elderly residents could embrace loved ones safely. From there, she discussed how the brain receives input from the skin and turns it into perception. We learned that touch is deeply tied to our social and emotional wellbeing.

Taste – Prof Sally Eldeghaidy (University of Nottingham)
Sally focused on a lesser-known concept: thermally induced taste—where some people (known as thermal tasters) experience taste sensations purely from changes in temperature. Drawing on research like Mitchell et al. (2019), she explained how thermal tasters show heightened sensitivity not just to taste but also to temperature, astringency, and texture. Her talk raised fascinating questions about how individual perception can vary, and made everyone reconsider how much of taste is subjective.

Together, the talks revealed just how complex—and personal—our senses really are. Far from passive inputs, our senses are shaped by the brain’s interpretations, memories, and emotions.

This half-day symposium tackled the elusive matter of dreams from every possible angle—neuroscience, AI, philosophy, even music. It was structured in three sessions, to tackle all aspects of this fascinating facet of human experience.

Prof. Mark Solms (University of Cape Town), a leading neuropsychologist, delivered a compelling keynote on the science of dreaming. He contrasted Freud’s theory of wish-fulfillment with modern neuroscience, revealing that REM sleep and dreaming are distinct processes. Solms highlighted brain regions—especially in the parietal cortex and deep frontal white matter—linked to motivation and imagery as key to dream generation. His findings challenge the view of dreams as meaningless byproducts, instead supporting their role in emotion and cognition, aligning Freud’s ideas with current brain science.

Dr Pietro Luca Ratti, Consultant Neurologist, explored REM Sleep Behaviour Disorder (RBD), a condition where people physically act out their dreams due to a loss of normal muscle paralysis during REM sleep. He highlighted RBD as a unique window into the brain’s control of movement during sleep—and as an important early warning sign for neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s. His talk emphasized RBD’s clinical relevance and its potential as a biomarker for neurological decline.

After a tea break (and a display of dream-inspired art), the second session focused on interdisciplinary research:

Prof Rui Ponte Costa (University of Oxford) presented a computational neuroscience view of dreaming, suggesting dreams help prevent forgetting by replaying and integrating experiences into our internal world model. Drawing parallels with AI systems that avoid “catastrophic forgetting,” he proposed that dreams emerge when new experiences conflict with existing beliefs—prompting the brain to reconcile them. This may explain dreams’ emotional and surreal qualities. His talk highlighted how AI and computational models can shed light on the brain’s learning processes during sleep.

A Journal Club led by early-career researchers (Leah Fogarty, Zilu Liang, Rosie McDonald-Hill, Tamas Foldes) dissected the Siclari et al. (2017) paper on neural correlates of dreaming, sparking discussion from both the panel and audience.

The final session turned to the arts and humanities:

Kristina Arakelyan, award-winning composer, delivered a personal and performance-led session that explored the theme of dreams through her own compositions. She began by sharing her ethos as a composer and educator, including her experience of entering a dream-like creative state while writing music. The session featured three contrasting works: Daydream, a beginner piano piece from the ABRSM syllabus; Dreamland, inspired by Christina Rossetti’s poem; and Train Ride, a choral piece built from audience-submitted dreams. Interweaving live performance and reflection, Kristina offered a unique perspective on how dreaming influences musical imagination.

Dr Louise Braddock, independent scholar, rounded out the session with a psychoanalytic lens on dreams and creativity. She explored how Patrice Moor’s collage art functions like dreaming—offering a way to express and symbolically process early, pre-verbal loss. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, especially object relations and Richard Wollheim’s philosophy of art, Braddock showed how collage serves as a form of unconscious emotional work, turning fragmented memories into visual symbols. Like dreams, these artworks reveal internal states and offer a way to communicate what might otherwise remain unspoken.

Together, these sessions revealed just how much dreams can teach us—not only about the brain, but about memory, creativity, and the unconscious mind.

A mix of scientists and ethicists tackled one of the most exciting—and ethically tangled—frontiers of neuroscience: brain-computer interfaces and neurotechnology.

Speakers included:

Dr. Joram Van Rheede (University of Oxford) showcased how brain-computer interfaces and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are transforming neurological care. With over 300,000 neurotech implants already in use, his focus was on next-gen DBS systems that adapt to real-time brain signals. He highlighted a key oversight: current devices often ignore how brain activity shifts with sleep and circadian rhythms. Van Rheede introduced a smart, predictive DBS prototype that adjusts stimulation based on time of day and brain state—offering a more personalised, effective approach to treating neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Prof Roi Cohen Kadosh (University of Surrey) explored how neurotechnology intersects with educational equity, focusing on the Matthew Effect—where early learning advantages compound over time. He questioned whether neurotech could help close or further widen educational gaps, depending on how it’s deployed. He presented findings showing that techniques like transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) may improve learning—particularly for individuals with lower baseline performance. This suggests a “partial Robin Hood effect,” where the technology may benefit underperforming students the most. His talk emphasized the need for equitable, inclusive design to ensure neurotechnology helps all learners, not just the already advantaged.

Prof Andrew Jackson (University of Newcastle) offered a rich historical perspective on the evolution of neurotechnology, beginning with Galvani’s 18th-century discovery of “animal electricity”, progressing through Delgado’s dramatic 1963 remote control of a bull via brain implant. He discussed controversial mid-20th century proposals to manage violent behaviour through neurosurgery, highlighting the ethical tensions that have long accompanied this field. Jackson then mapped the rise of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), from decoding motor intentions in monkeys (Georgopoulos, 1982) to enabling humans to control cursors, robotic limbs, and even their own muscles via implanted systems (Hochberg, Ethier, Bouton). He pointed to his own early work on the Neurochip (2005)—a closed-loop neural interface capable of decoding and stimulating brain activity—as a scientific precursor to the technology now attracting attention through Neuralink’s media presence. Jackson closed by reflecting on music as humanity’s original brain stimulator, showing how even ancient forms of neural engagement can inform modern neuroscience.

After a short break for drinks and conversation, the tone shifted toward ethics:

Prof Thomas Douglas (University of Oxford) examined the ethics of using brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for enhancement rather than therapy. He distinguished between biomedical enhancement (boosting healthy individuals’ abilities) and therapy (treating illness), as well as external forms of enhancement like education. Douglas raised concerns about fairness, access, and societal pressure, urging careful reflection on how—and whether—BCIs should be used to augment human capacities.

Dr Alex McKeown, Head of Data Ethics at IGS, explored the ethical and regulatory complexities of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). He questioned whether the distinction between therapy and enhancement divide is conceptually sound, noting that all effective therapies, by definition, enhance. He invoked Clark and Chalmers’ Extended Mind thesis, which sees tools like notebooks or computers not as external aids, but as integral parts of our cognitive system. In this view, BCIs don’t introduce something foreign, but simply extend how the mind has always operated. McKeown concluded that effective policy and governance must go beyond regulating hardware—it must engage with evolving ideas of what it means to be human in an age of cognitive extension.

The event wrapped up with a dynamic panel discussion (joined also by Dr David Lyreskog, University of Oxford). Panelists tackled the uneven distribution of BCI access, echoing William Gibson’s view that the future is “already here, just not evenly distributed.” Ethical regulation was debated not as a barrier but as a potential driver of responsible innovation. The rise of DIY BCI sparked discussion on whether grassroots tech needs new governance models, distinct from pharmaceuticals.

The event offered a space where science and ethics met to confront the rapidly evolving reality of human-tech integration, a conversation that will only grow more urgent in the years ahead.

This event focused on Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviours (BFRBs) such as skin picking or hair pulling, which are often misunderstood or hidden in silence.

The evening began with a hands-on art workshop led by Liz Atkin, an internationally recognised artist who transforms her own experience of Compulsive Skin Picking into art. Participants sketched, scribbled, and created freely, using drawing as a tool of self-expression and emotional release.

The following talk and discussion brought Liz into conversation with Prof Clare Mackay (University of Oxford), a neuroscientist who has also lived with trichotillomania for decades. Together, they explored how art and science can work together to illuminate the complexities of compulsive behaviour, reduce stigma, and open up new research questions.

Their honesty and vulnerability led to thoughtful engagement from the audience during the Q+A. The event exemplified best practices for how science and creativity can come together to create something deeply meaningful for real human lives.