Video summary
Dr. Erich Jarvis, a professor at Rockefeller University and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, joins Huberman Lab to explore the neurobiology of vocal learning, speech, language, and music. Dr. Jarvis challenges the traditional psychological distinction between "speech" (motor production) and "language," arguing that there is no separate brain module for language; instead, complex algorithms for both understanding and producing sound are embedded within specialized pathways found in humans, parrots, and songbirds. While auditory perception circuits exist across many species—allowing dogs to understand commands like "sit"—only vocal learners possess the forebrain circuitry necessary to imitate sounds. This specialization is crucial because it represents a rare evolutionary trait where learned behaviors override innate reflexes controlled by lower brainstem regions. A central theme of Dr. Jarvis's research involves the deep connection between speech and movement, specifically dance. He explains that in vocal learning species like humans and parrots (such as Snowball the cockatoo), the neural circuits for producing sound evolved from surrounding motor pathways used for body movement. Consequently, these animals can synchronize their entire bodies to rhythmic beats because they utilize brain regions adjacent to those controlling speech production. Dr. Jarvis notes that while non-human primates may have advanced gestural abilities, humans are unique in combining sophisticated spoken language with the capacity to dance. He cites recent studies showing resonance between dancers and audiences via EEG signals, suggesting a shared neural basis for emotional bonding through synchronized movement and sound. The conversation also addresses the genetic underpinnings of these traits and Dr. Jarvis's involvement in massive genomic projects like the Vertebrate Genomes Project. By sequencing genomes across thousands of species, researchers can identify specific genetic changes associated with vocal learning versus other traits like flight or skin color evolution. This comparative genomics approach reveals that nature has performed natural experiments over millions of years; for instance, similar genes are involved in independent evolutionary adaptations such as dark and light skin tones in humans at different latitudes. Dr. Jarvis emphasizes the moral imperative to sequence endangered species before they go extinct, creating a "Genome Ark" database that could potentially aid future conservation efforts or even de-extinction projects like those aimed at reviving the passenger pigeon or woolly mammoth. Finally, Dr. Jarvis offers practical insights for cognitive health and personal development based on his life experience as both a former dancer and neuroscientist. He argues against separating cognition from physical action, asserting that activities requiring whole-body movement—such as dancing, running, or singing—are essential for maintaining brain plasticity into old age. These actions engage the same circuitry used for speech production, keeping cognitive networks fresh and integrated. While he acknowledges his own genetic predisposition toward high-intensity athletic traits but a lack of pitch-perfect singing ability (a trait linked to specific genes), he encourages consistent physical practice over innate talent. The episode concludes with an optimistic outlook on future technologies that may translate thoughts directly into speech, highlighting the ethical complexities and scientific potential involved in bridging the gap between internal thought and external motor output.
Read the full video transcript
Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast,
where we discuss science and
science-based tools for everyday life.
I'm Andrew Huberman, and I'm a professor
of neurobiology and ophthalmology at
Stanford School of Medicine. Today, my
guest is Dr. Erich Jarvis. Dr. Jarvis is
a professor at the Rockefeller
University in New York City,
and his laboratory studies the
neurobiology of vocal learning,
language, speech disorders, and
remarkably the relationship between
language, music, and movement, in
particular dance.
His work spans from genomics, so the
very genes that make up our genome and
the genomes of other species that speak
and have language, such as songbirds and
parrots,
all the way up to neural circuits, that
is, the connections in the brain and
body that govern our ability to learn
and generate specific sounds and
movements coordinated with those sounds,
including hand movements,
and
all the way up to cognition, that is,
our ability to think in specific ways
based on what we are saying and the way
that we comprehend what other people are
saying, singing, and doing.
As you'll soon see,
I was immediately transfixed and
absolutely enchanted by Dr. Jarvis's
description of his work and the ways
that it impacts all the various aspects
of our lives. For instance, I learned
from Dr. Jarvis that as we read, we are
generating very low levels of motor
activity in our throat, that is, we are
speaking the words that we are reading
at a level below the perception of sound
or our own perception of those words.
But if one were to put an amplifier to
measure the firing of those muscles in
our vocal cords, we'd find that as we're
reading information, we are actually
speaking that information.
And as I learned and you'll soon learn,
there's a direct link between those
species in the world that have song and
movement, which many of us would
associate with dance, and our ability to
learn and generate complex language.
So, for people with speech disorders
like stutter, or for people who are
interested in multiple language
learning, bilingual, trilingual, et
cetera, and frankly for anyone who is
interested in how we communicate through
words, written or spoken,
I'm certain today's episode is going to
be an especially interesting and
important one for you. Dr. Jarvis' work
is so pioneering that he has been
awarded truly countless awards. I'm not
going to take our time to list off all
of the various important awards that
he's received, but I should point out
that in addition to being a decorated
professor at the Rockefeller University,
he is also an investigator with the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the
so-called HHMI.
And for those of you that don't know,
HHMI investigators are selected on an
extremely competitive basis,
that they have to re-up, that is they
have to re-compete every five years.
They actually receive a grade every five
years that dictates whether or not they
are no longer a Howard Hughes
investigator, whether or not they can
advance to another five years of funding
for their important research, and indeed
Howard Hughes investigators are selected
not just for the rigor of their work,
but for their pioneering spirit and
their ability to take on high-risk,
high-benefit work, which is exactly the
kind of work that Dr. Jarvis has been
providing for decades now.
Again, I think today's episode is one of
the more unique and special episodes
that we've had on the Huberman Lab
podcast. I single it out because it
really spans from the basic to the
applied, and Dr. Jarvis' story is an
especially unique one in terms of how he
arrived at becoming a neurobiologist.
So, for those of you that are interested
in personal journey and personal story,
Dr. Jarvis' is truly a special and
important one. I'm pleased to announce
that the Huberman Lab podcast is now
partnered with Momentous Supplements. We
partnered with Momentous for several
important reasons. First of all, they
ship internationally, because we know
that many of you are located outside of
the United States. Second of all, and
perhaps most important, the quality of
their supplements is second to none,
both in terms of purity and precision of
the amounts of the ingredients.
Third, we've really emphasized
supplements that are single ingredient
supplements and that are supplied in
dosages that allow you to build a
supplementation protocol that's
optimized for cost, that's optimized for
effectiveness, and that you can add
things and remove things from your
protocol in a way that's really
systematic and scientific. If you'd like
to see the supplements that we partner
with Momentous on, you can go to
livemomentous.com/huberman.
There you'll see those supplements and
just keep in mind that we are constantly
expanding the library of supplements
available through Momentous on a regular
basis. Again, that's
livemomentous.com/huberman.
Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize
that this podcast is separate from my
teaching and research roles at Stanford.
It is, however, part of my desire and
effort to bring zero-cost to consumer
information about science and
science-related tools to the general
public. In keeping with that theme, I'd
like to thank the sponsors of today's
podcast. Our first sponsor is
InsideTracker. InsideTracker is a
personalized nutrition platform that
analyzes data from your blood and DNA to
help you better meet your immediate and
long-term health goals. I've long been a
believer in getting regular blood work
done for the simple reason that many of
the factors that impact your immediate
and long-term health can only be
analyzed from a quality blood test. And
nowadays, with the advent of modern DNA
tests, you can also get insight into,
for example, what your biological age is
and compare that to your chronological
age. The problem with a lot of DNA tests
and blood tests, however, is you get
information back about metabolic
factors, lipids,
and hormones and so forth, but you don't
know what to do with or about that
information. InsideTracker solves that
problem with a simple platform that
allows you to click on any specific
factor, learn more about it and what it
does in your brain and body, and also
the various nutritional,
supplementation, and other types of
interventions you can take to bring the
levels of that factor into the ranges
that are optimal for you and your
health.
If you'd like to try InsideTracker, you
can go to insidetracker.com/huberman
to get 20% off any of InsideTracker's
plans. That's insidetracker.com/huberman
to get 20% off. Today's episode is also
brought to us by Roka. Roka makes
eyeglasses and sunglasses that are of
the absolute highest quality. They also
have some really unique features that
make them especially attractive from the
standpoint of aesthetics and
performance.
The company was founded by two
All-American swimmers from Stanford, and
everything about their eyeglasses and
sunglasses were designed with
performance in mind. Initially, the
eyeglasses and sunglasses were designed
for sport, that is for running and for
cycling, etc. And indeed, still their
eyeglasses and sunglasses are very
lightweight, and they won't slip off
your face if you get sweaty. But they
also have a terrific aesthetic. You can
wear them to work, you can wear them out
to eat. I wear readers at night when I
work or if I drive, and I wear
sunglasses sometimes during the middle
of the day if it's too bright and I need
sunglasses in order to see. If you'd
like to try Roka eyeglasses or
sunglasses, you can go to roka, that's
roka.com, and enter the code Huberman to
save 20% off your first order. Again,
that's roka.com, and enter the code
Huberman at checkout. Today's episode is
also brought to us by Element. Element
is an electrolyte drink that has
everything you need and nothing you
don't, meaning no sugar but plenty of
the correct ratios of sodium, magnesium,
and potassium. And those three
electrolytes, sodium, magnesium, and
potassium, are critical for your neuron,
your nerve cell function, and for the
function of all the cells in your brain
and body.
I've mentioned this before on the
podcast, but I'm a fan of salt. Not
taking too much salt, but certainly not
getting too little salt. Element has
1,000 mg, that is 1 g of salt, which
might sound like a lot of salt, but for
many people, especially people who are
following low-carbohydrate diets
or who are exercising or sweating a lot
or both,
that level of salt can actually help you
in many circumstances. Getting the
appropriate level of salt, and certainly
the appropriate levels of electrolytes,
will improve your cognitive function and
will improve your physical performance.
If you'd like to try Element, you can go
to drinkelement, that's
element.com/huberman,
and you'll get a free sample pack with
your order. That's
drinkelement.com/huberman.
And now, for my discussion with Dr. Eric
Jarvis. Eric, so great to have you here.
Thank you. Yeah. Very interested in
learning from you about speech and
language. And even as I ask the
question, I realize that a lot of
people, including myself, probably don't
fully appreciate the distinction between
speech and language.
Right? Speech, I think of as the motor
patterns, the the production of sound uh
that has meaning, hopefully. And
language, of course, comes in various
languages and varieties of of ways of
communicating. But, in terms of the
study of speech and language, and
thinking about how the brain organizes
speech and language, uh what are the
similarities? What are the differences?
How should we think about speech and
language? Yeah. Um well, I'm glad you,
you know, invited me here, and I'm also
glad to get that first question,
which I consider a provocative one. The
reason why
uh I've been struggling what is the
difference between speech and language
for many years,
and realized why am I struggling? It's
because they are behavioral terms, let's
call them psychologically psychology
developed kind of terms,
um that don't actually align exactly
with brain function.
All right? And the question is there a
distinction between speech and language?
And when I look at the brain of work
that other people have done, work we
have done, also compared it with animal
models, like those who can imitate
sounds, like parrots and songbirds,
I start to see there really isn't such a
sharp distinction. So, so to get at what
I think is going on, let me tell you how
some people think of it now, that
there's a separate language module in
the brain
uh that has all the algorithms and
computations that influence the speech
pathway on how to produce sound
and the auditory pathway on how to
perceive and interpret it uh for speech
or for you know
sound that we call speech.
And um
it turns out
I don't think there is any good evidence
for a separate language module.
Instead
there is a speech production pathway
that's controlling our larynx,
controlling our jaw muscles, that has
built within it all the complex
algorithms for spoken language. And
there's the auditory pathway
that has built within it all the complex
algorithms for understanding speech, not
separate from a language module.
And this speech production pathway is
specialized to humans
and parrots and songbirds. Whereas this
auditory perception pathway is more
ubiquitous amongst the animal kingdom.
And this is why dogs can understand sit.
Sientate say, come here ball boy, get
the ball and so forth. Dogs can
understand several hundred human speech
words. Great apes, you can teach them
for several thousand, but they can't say
a word.
Fascinating.
Because you've raised a number of animal
species early on here and because I have
a basically an obsession with animals
since the time I was very small, I have
to ask um which animals have language?
Which animals have modes of
communication that are sort of like
language? Yeah. Um you know, I've heard
whale songs. I don't know what they're
saying. They sound very beautiful, but I
they could be insulting each other for
all I know. Yeah. Um and they they very
well may be.
Dolphins, birds, I mean they
what do we understand about modes of
communication that are
like language but might not be what
would classically be called language.
So
modes of communication that people would
define as language more very in a very
narrow definition they would say
production of sound so speech.
Um but what about the hands? The
gesturing with the hands? What about a
bird who is doing aerial displays in the
air communicating information through
body language, right?
Well, um I'm going to go back to the
brain.
So
what I think is going on is for spoken
language we're using the speech pathway
and all the complex algorithms there.
Next to the brain regions that are
controlling spoken language are the
brain regions for gesturing with the
hands.
And that hand parallel pathway has also
complex algorithms that we can utilize.
And some species are more advanced in
these circuits whether it's sound or
gesturing with hands and some are less
advanced.
Now we humans and a few others are the
most advanced for the speech sounds or
the or the spoken language but a
non-human primate can produce gesturing
in a more advanced form than they can
produce sound.
I'm not sure I got that across clearly
just to say that
humans are the most advanced at spoken
language
but not necessarily as big a difference
at gestural language compared to some
other species.
Very clear and very interesting and and
immediately prompts the question have
there been brain imaging or other sorts
of
studies evaluating neural activity in
the context of
you know, cultures and languages at
least that I associate with a lot of
hand movement like Italian versus
I don't know maybe you could give us
some examples of cultures where language
is not associated with with as much
overt hand movement.
Yes. So, as you and I are talking here
today and people who are listening but
can't see us, we're actually gesturing
with our hands as we talk uh without
knowing it or doing it unconsciously.
And if we were talking on a telephone, I
would have one hand here and I'd be
gesturing with the other hand without
even you seeing me, right? And so, why
is that? Uh some have argued and I would
agree with based upon what we've seen is
that there's an evolutionary
relationship between the brain pathways
that control speech production and
gesturing.
Uh and and the brain regions I mentioned
are directly adjacent to each other. And
why is that? I think that the brain
pathways that control speech evolved out
of the brain pathways that control body
movement.
All right? And um
that's uh
when you talk about Italian, French,
English, and so forth,
um each one of those languages come with
a learned set of gestures
that uh you can communicate with. Now,
how is that related to other animals?
Well, Koko, a gorilla who was raised
with humans for 39 years or more, uh
learned how to do gesture
communication, learned how to sign
language, so to speak, right? But Koko
couldn't produce those sounds. Koko
could understand them as well
by sign by seeing somebody sign or
hearing somebody produce speech, but
Koko couldn't produce it with her voice.
And so, what's going on there is that
a number of species, not all of them, a
number of species have motor pathways in
the brain where you can do learned
gesturing, rudimentary language if you
want to say with your limbs, even if
it's not as advanced as humans, but they
don't have this extra brain pathway for
the sound.
So, they can't gesture with their voice
in the way that they gesture with their
hands. I see.
One thing that I've wondered about for a
very long time is whether or not um
primitive emotions
and primitive sounds are the early
substrate of language. And whether or
not there's a bridge that we can draw
between those in terms of just
the basic respiration systems associated
with different extreme feelings. Here
Here's the way I'm imagining this might
work.
When I smell something delicious,
I typically inhale more,
Mhm. and I might say, "Mhm." or
something like that. Whereas if I smell
something putrid, I typically turn away,
I wince, and I will exhale, you know, I
sort of kind of like turn away, trying
to not ingest those molecules or inhale
those molecules. I could imagine that
these are the basic dark and light
contrasts of the of the language system.
And as I say that, I'm saying that from
the orientation of a vision scientist
who thinks of all visual images built up
in a very basic way of a hierarchical
model of the ability to see dark and
light. So, I could imagine this kind of
primitive to more sophisticated
um
pyramid of of sound to language.
Is this a crazy idea? Do we have any uh
Do we have any evidence this is the way
it works? Uh no, it's not a crazy idea.
And in fact, you hit upon one of the key
distinctions in the field of research
that I had started out in, which is
vocal learning research. So, for vocal
communication,
uh you have most vertebrate species
vocalize. But most of them are producing
innate sounds that they're born with
uh producing. Uh that is babies crying,
for example, or dogs barking.
Uh and only a few species have learned
vocal communication, the ability to
imitate sounds. And that's is what makes
spoken language special. When people
think of what's special about language,
it's the learned vocalizations. It's the
what that is what's rare.
And so the distinction between nateness
and learned um is more of a bigger
dichotomy when it comes to vocalizations
than for other behaviors in the animal
kingdom.
And uh
when you go in the brain, you see it
there as well. Uh and so all the things
you talked about, the breathing, the
grunting, and so forth, a lot of that is
handled by the brainstem circuits, you
know, right around the level of your
neck and below.
Uh
like a reflex kind of thing. So or or
even some emotional aspects of your
behavior in the hypothalamus and so
forth.
But for a learned behavior, learning how
to speak,
uh learning how to play the piano,
teaching a dog to learn how to do
tricks,
is using the forebrain circuits.
And what has happened is that there's a
lot of forebrain circuits that are
controlling learning how to move body
parts in these species, but not for the
vocalizations. But in humans and in
parrots and some other species,
somehow we acquired circuits where the
forebrain has taken over the brainstem
and now using that brainstem not only to
produce the innate behaviors or vocal
behaviors, but the learned ones as well.
Do we have any sense of when
modern or sophisticated language
evolved? You know, uh thinking back to
the species that we evolved from and
even within Homo sapiens, um have has
there been an evolution of language? Has
there been a a devolution of language?
Yeah.
Yeah yeah I I would say um
and and to be able to answer that
question, it does come with the caveat
that I think we humans overrate
ourselves when it compared to other
species. And so it makes
even scientists
go astray in in trying to hypothesize
when you especially don't find fossil
evidence of language that easily.
In
out there in terms of what happened in
the past.
We
amongst the primates which we humans
belong to, we are the only ones that
have this advanced vocal learning
ability.
Now
when you
it was assumed that it was only Homo
sapiens.
Then you can go back in time now based
upon genomic data
not only of us living humans but of the
fossils that have been found for Homo
sapiens
of Neanderthals, of Denisovan
individuals and discover that our
ancestor, our human ancestors supposedly
hybridized with these other
hominid species.
And it was assumed that these other
hominid species don't learn how to
imitate sounds.
I don't know of any species today that's
a vocal learner that can have children
with a non-vocal learning species.
I I don't see it. Doesn't mean it didn't
exist.
And when we look at the genetic data
from these ancestral hominids that you
know where we can look at genes that are
involved in learn vocal communication,
they have the same sequence as we humans
do.
For genes that function in speech
circuits.
So I think Neanderthals had spoken
language. I'm not going to say it's as
advanced as what it is in humans, I
don't know.
But I think it's been there for at least
between 500,000 to a million years.
That our ancestors had this ability and
that we've been coming more and more
advanced with it culturally and possibly
genetically.
But I think it's evolved sometime in the
last 500,000 to a million years.
Incredible.
Maybe we could talk a little bit more
about the overlap between brain circuits
that control language and speech in
humans and other animals.
Uh
you know, I was weaned in the in the
neuroscience era where birdsong and the
uh
the ability of birds to learn their
tutor song was a
was and still is a prominent field and
um subfield of neuroscience. And then of
course neuroimaging of uh humans uh
speaking and learning, etc. And this
notion of a critical period, a time in
which language is learned more easily
than it is later in life. And
the names of the different brain areas
were quite different. Um it one opens
the textbooks, we hear Wernicke's and
Broca's for the humans and you look at
the birds of it, I remember you know HVC
Yeah, robustus striatum, area X, That's
right. Yes. uh etc.
But um for most of our listeners that
those names won't mean a whole lot. But
um but in terms of homologies
between areas in terms of function, what
do we know? And um how similar or
different are the brains uh brain areas
controlling uh speech and language in
say a songbird and a and a young child
human child? Yeah. So so going back to
the 1950s or and even a little earlier
and Peter Marler and others who had
gotten involved in neuroethology, the
study of neurobiology of behavior in a
natural way, right?
Um you know, they start to find that
behaviorally
there are these species of birds like
songbirds and parrots and now we also
know hummingbirds, just three of them
out of the 40-something bird groups out
there on the planet orders,
that they can imitate sounds like we do.
And so that was a similarity. In other
words, they had this kind of behavior
that's more similar to us than
chimpanzees have with us or than
chickens have with them, right? They're
closer relatives. And then they
discovered even more similarities, these
critical periods that if you remove a
child and you know, this unfortunately
happens where a child is feral and that
is not raised with human and goes
through their puberty phase of growth,
becomes hard for them to learn a a
language as an adult. So, there's this
critical period where you learn best.
And even later on when you're in regular
society, it's hard to learn. Well, the
same birds undergo these same thing. And
then it was discovered that if they
become deaf, we humans become deaf, our
speech starts to deteriorate without any
kind of therapy.
Uh if a non-human primate or
um you know, or let's say a chicken
becomes deaf, uh their vocalizations
don't deteriorate, very little at least.
Uh well, this happens in the vocal
learning birds. So, there were all these
behavioral parallels that came along in
a package. And then people looked into
the brain, Fernando Nottebohm, former
PhD advisor, and began to discover the
area X you talked about, uh the robust
nucleus of the arcopallium. And um
and these brain pathways were not found
in the species who couldn't imitate. So,
there was a parallel here.
And then uh jumping many years later,
you know, I started to dig down into
these brain circuits to discover that
these brain circuits have parallel
functions with the brain circuits for
humans even though they're by a
different name like Broca's and
laryngeal motor cortex. And most
recently, we discovered not only the
actual circuitry and the connectivity
are similar, but the underlying genes
that are expressed in these brain
regions in a specialized way different
from the rest of the brain are also
similar between humans and songbirds and
parrots. So, all the way down to the
genes and now we're finding the specific
mutations
are also similar, not always identical
but similar. Uh which indicates
remarkable convergence for a so-called
complex behavior in species separated by
300 million years in a common ancestor.
And not only that, we are discovering
that mutations in these genes that cause
speech deficits in humans like in FoxP2,
uh if you put those same mutations or
similar type of deficits in these vocal
learning birds, you get similar
deficits. So, convergence of the
behavior is associated with similar
genetic disorders of the behavior.
Incredible.
I have to ask, do hummingbirds sing or
do they hum?
Hummingbirds hum with their wings and
sing with their syrinx.
In a coordinated way? In a coordinated
way. There is some species of
hummingbirds um
that actually will um Doug Archbold
showed this that will flap uh their
wings and create a slapping sound with
their wings that's in unison with their
song. And oh and you would not know it,
but it sounds like a particular syllable
in their songs uh even though it's their
wings and their voice at the same time.
Hummingbirds are clapping to their song.
Clapping with their their snapping their
wings together uh in unison with the
song to to make it like if I'm going ba
da ba da da ba da
you know, and I banged on the table.
Except they make it almost sound like
their voice with their wings.
Incredible.
Yes. I I'm
And they got some of the smallest brains
around.
would say mind-blown.
Yeah, yes. Incredible.
Yes. Incredible. I love hummingbirds and
I always feel like it's such a a special
thing to get a moment to see one because
they move around so fast and they flit
away so fast in these ballistic
trajectories
Yep. that when you get to see one
stationary for a moment or even just
hovering there, it's uh you feel like
you're extracting so much from their
little little microcosm of life. But now
I realize they're they're playing music
essentially.
exactly. And what's amazing about
hummingbirds and I will going to say
vocal learning species in general is
that for whatever reason they seem to
evolve multiple complex traits.
You know, this idea that the evolving
language, spoken language in particular,
comes along with a set of
specializations.
Incredible.
When I was coming up in neuroscience, I
learned that I think it was the work of
Peter Marler that um
young birds learn songbirds learn their
tutor's song
and learn it quite quite well, but that
they could learn the song of another
tutor. In other words, they could learn
a different, and for the listeners I'm
doing air quotes here, a different
language, a different bird song,
different than their own species song,
but never as well as they could learn
their own natural
genetically linked song. Yes.
Genetically linked meaning that it would
be like me being raised in a different
culture and um
that I would learn that the other
language, but not as well as I would
have learned English. This this is the
idea.
Yes. Is that true?
That is true. Yes, and that's and that's
what I learned going up as well and and
and talked to Peter Marler himself about
before he passed.
Um yeah, this he used to call it the
innate predisposition to learn.
All right, so
um
which would be kind of the equivalent in
the linguistic community of universal
grammar. There is something genetically
influencing our vocal communication on
top of what we learn culturally. And so
there's this balance between the genetic
control of speech or a song in these
birds and the learned uh cultural
control.
And so so yes, if you were to take
um you know, um
I mean in this case we we actually tried
this at Rockefeller later on, take a
zebra finch and raise it with a canary,
it would sing a song that was sort of
like a hybrid in between. We call it a
caninch,
right?
Uh and vice versa for the canary.
Because there's something different
about their vocal musculature or the or
the circuitry in the brain.
And with a zebra finch, even with a
closely related species, if you would
take a zebra finch
uh young animal and in one cage next to
it place its own species adult male,
right? And in the other cage place a
Bengali finch next to it, it would
preferably learn the song from the
its own species neighbor. But if you
remove its neighbor, it would learn that
Bengali finch very well. Fantastic.
So, there's it it has something to do
with also the social bonding with your
own species. Incredible.
That raises a question that I've based
on something I also heard, but I don't
have any uh scientific peer-reviewed
publication to point to, which is this
this idea of pigeon, not the bird, but
this idea of when multiple cultures and
languages converge in a given geographic
area, that the children of all the
different native languages will come up
with their own language.
I think this was in island culture,
maybe in Hawaii, called pigeon, which is
sort of a hybrid of the various
languages that their parents speak at
home and that they themselves speak and
that somehow pigeon, again, not the
bird, but a language called pigeon for
reasons I don't know,
harbors certain basic elements of all
language. Mhm. Is that true? Is that not
true? I I I would say I haven't studied
enough myself in in terms of pigeon
specifically, but in terms of cultural
evolution of language and hybridization
between different cultures and so forth,
uh even amongst birds with different
dialects, uh and you bring them
together, uh
you know, what is going on here is
cultural evolution remarkably tracks
genetic evolution. So, if you bring
people from two separate populations
together that have been in their
separate populations evolutionarily at
least for hundreds of generations, so
someone speaking Chinese, someone
speaking English,
and that child then's learning from both
of them,
yes, that child's going to be able to
pick up and merge uh
phonemes and words together in a way
that an adult wouldn't because why?
They're experiencing both languages at
the same time during their critical
period uh years in a way that adults
would not be able to experience. And so,
you get a hybrid.
And the lowest common denominator is
going to be what they share. And so, the
phonemes that they retained in each of
their
languages is what's going to be, I
imagine, used the most. Interesting.
So, we've got
brain circuits in songbirds and in
humans that in many ways are similar,
perhaps not in their exact wiring, but
in their basic contour of wiring, and
genes that are expressed in both sets of
neural circuits in very distinct species
that are responsible for these these
phenomena we're calling speech and
language.
What sorts of things are those genes
controlling? What's I could imagine they
were controlling the wiring of
connections between brain areas, you
know, essentially a map of, you know, of
a circuit. I just feel like an engineer
would on a circuit for speech and
language. Nature designed the circuit
for speech and language. But presumably
other things, too, like the ability to
um
connect
motor patterns within the throat of
muscles within the throat, when the
control of the tongue. I mean, what are
what are these genes doing? You're
pretty good. Yeah, you made some very
good guesses there that make sense. Uh
So,
so, yes. One of the things that differ
in the speech pathways of us and these
song pathways of birds is some of the
connections are fundamentally different
than the surrounding circuits. Like a
um, a direct cortical connection uh,
from the areas that control
vocalizations in the cortex to the motor
neurons that control the larynx in
humans or the syrinx in birds. And so we
actually made a prediction
uh, that since some of these connections
differ, we're going to find genes that
that control neuroconnectivity uh, and
that specialize in that function that
differ. And that's exactly what we
found. Uh,
the um, genes that control what we call
axon guidance and formation of
connections. And what was interesting,
it was sort of in the opposite direction
that we expected. That is
some of these genes actually, a number
of them that control neuroconnectivity
were turned off
in the speech circuit. All right. Uh,
and it didn't make sense to us at first
and so we started to realize the
function of these genes are to repel
connections from forming. So repulsive
molecules. And so when you turn them
off, they allow certain connections to
form that normally would have not
formed. So it's So by turning it off,
you got a gain of function for speech,
right?
Um,
other genes that surprised us were genes
involved in calcium buffering,
neuroprotection.
Like a parvalbumin or heat shock
protein. So when your brain gets hot,
these proteins turn on. And we couldn't
figure out for a long time, why is that
the case? And then the idea popped to me
one day. I said, "Ah." When I heard the
larynx is the fastest firing muscles in
the body. All right. In order to vibrate
sound and and modulate sound in the way
we do, you have to control you have to
move those muscles, you know, three to
four to five times faster than just
regular walking or running.
And so um,
when you stick electrodes in in the
brain areas that control learned
vocalizations in these birds and I think
in humans as well,
uh those neurons are firing at a higher
rate to control these muscles.
And so, what is that going to do? You're
going to have lots of toxicity in those
neurons unless you upregulate molecules
that
take out uh the extra load that is
needed to control the larynx. And then
finally, a third set of genes that are
specialized in these speech circuit are
involved in neuroplasticity.
Uh neuroplasticity meaning allowing
the brain circuits to be more flexible
uh so you can learn better. And why is
that? I think learning how to produce
speech is a more complex learning
ability than say learning how to walk
or or learning how to do tricks and
jumps and so forth that dogs do.
Yeah, it's interesting as you say that
because I
I realized that many aspects of speech
are sort of reflexive. I'm not thinking
about each word I'm going to say. I they
just sort of roll out of my mouth,
hopefully with forethought. We both know
people that uh
seem to speak uh think less fewer
synapses between their brain and their
mouth than others, right? A lot of
examples out there. And some people are
very deliberate in their speech, but
nonetheless, that um much of speech is
uh has to be precise and some of it less
precise.
In terms of plasticity of speech and the
ability to learn multiple languages, but
even just one language,
what's going on in the critical period,
the so-called critical period? Why is it
that um so my niece speaks Spanish
she's Guatemalan, speaks Spanish and
English incredibly well. She's 14 years
old.
Mhm. I've struggled with Spanish my
whole life. My father's bilingual, my
mother is not. I've tried to learn
Spanish as a as an adult. It's
really challenging. I'm told that had I
learned it when I was eight, I would be
better off. That's right. Um or it would
be installed within me.
So, the first question is
is it easier to learn multiple languages
without an accent early in life and if
so why? And then the second question is
if one can already speak more than one
language as a consequence of childhood
learning, is it easier to acquire new
languages later on?
So so the answer to both of these
questions is yes and that
but I but I but to to explain this
I need to let you know
actually the entire brain
is undergoing a critical period
development not just the speech
pathways. And so it's easier to learn
how to play a piano. It's easier to
learn how to ride a bike for the first
time and so forth as a young child than
it is later in life. What I mean easier
in terms of when you start from
you start from first principles of
learning something. So the very first
time if you're going to learn Chinese as
a child versus the very first time you
learn Chinese as an adult or learning
play piano as a child versus an adult.
But
the speech pathways or let's say speech
behavior I think has a stronger critical
period change to it than other circuits.
And why is what's going on there in
general?
If you
Why do you need a critical period to
make you more stable? To make you more
stubborn so to speak.
The reason I believe is that
the brain is not for brain can only hold
so much information.
And
if you
are undergoing rapid learning to learn
to acquire new knowledge, you also have
to
you know, dump stuff. Put put in memory
or information in in the trash like in a
computer. You you only have so many
gigabases of memory.
And so therefore
plus also for survival, you don't want
to keep forgetting things.
And so so the brain is designed, I
believe,
to undergo this critical period and
solidify the circuits with what you
learned as a child and you use that for
the rest of your life. And we humans
stay even more plastic in our brain
functions controlled by a gene called
SRGAP2. We have an extra copy of it that
leaves our speech circuit and other
brain regions in a more immature state
throughout life compared to other
animals. So, we're we're more immature.
We're still juvenile-like compared to
other animals.
I knew it. But we But we still go
through the critical periods like they
all do. And now, the question you asked
about if you learn more
um
languages as a child, can you Is it
easier to learn as an adult? And that's
a common uh finding out there in the
literature. There's some that argue
against it, but for those that support
it, the idea there is
um you you are born with a set of innate
sounds you can produce of phonemes,
and you narrow that down because not all
languages use all of them. And so, you
narrow down the ones you use to string
the phonemes together in words that you
learn, and you maintain those phonemes
as an adult. And here comes along
another language that's using those
phonemes or in the in different
combinations you're not used to, uh and
therefore, you it's like starting from
first principles. But if you already
have them in multiple languages that
you're using, then it makes it easier to
use them in another third or fourth
language. I I see. Incredible.
So, So, it's not like your brain has
has maintained greater plasticity. Is
your your brain has maintained greater
ability to produce different sounds
that then allows you to learn another
language faster. Got it.
Are the hand gestures associated with
sounds or with meanings of words?
I think the hand gestures are associated
with both the sounds and the meaning. Uh
When I say sound like if you are really
angry, right? Uh and you are making a
loud screaming noise, right? You may
make hand gestures that are look like
you're going to beat the wall, right?
Because you're making loud sounds and
loud gestures. All right? Um but if you
want to explain something like come over
here, what I just do now to you for
those who can't see me, I swung my hand
towards you and swung it here to me.
That has a meaning to it to come here.
So, just like with the voice,
this the hand gestures are producing
both. Uh
uh you know, both both qualities of
sound. And for people that speak
multiple languages, especially those
that learn those multiple languages
early in development, do they switch
their patterns of motor movements
according to, let's say, going from
Italian to Arabic um or from Arabic to
French um in a way that matches the the
precision of language that they're
speaking? You know what? You just asked
me a question I don't know the answer
to. I would imagine that would make
sense because of
of of switching uh in terms of sometimes
people might call this code switching,
even different dialects of the same
language. Could you do that with your
gestures? I imagine so, but I really
don't know if that's true or not. Well,
I certainly don't know from my own
experience because I only speak one
language.
Before we continue with today's
discussion, I'd like to just briefly
acknowledge our sponsor Athletic Greens,
now called AG1.
Athletic Greens, aka AG1, is an
all-in-one vitamin, mineral, probiotic
drink that also has adaptogens and
digestive enzymes. I've been taking
Athletic Greens since way back in 2012,
so I'm delighted that they're sponsoring
the podcast. The reason I started taking
Athletic Greens and the reason I still
drink Athletic Greens twice a day is
that it supplies total foundational
coverage of my vitamin, mineral needs,
and it supplies is
nutrients that I need to support my gut
microbiome. The gut microbiome, as many
of you know, supports the immune system.
It also supports the so-called gut-brain
axis, which is vital for mood, for
energy levels, for regulating focus, and
many other features of our mental health
and physical health that impact our
daily performance and high performance
in any endeavors we might be involved
in. If you'd like to try Athletic
Greens, you can go to
athleticgreens.com/huberman
and claim a special offer. They're
giving away five free travel packs plus
a year's supply of vitamin D3 K2 with
every order. And of course, vitamin D3
K2 are vital for all sorts of things
like hormone health and metabolic health
and K2 for cardiovascular health and
calcium regulation. Again, you can go to
athleticgreens.com/huberman
to claim that special offer. To
go a little bit into the abstract, but
not too far, um what about modes of
speech and language that seem to have a
depth of emotionality and meaning, but
for which it departs from structured
language?
Here's what I mean, uh poetry. Mhm. Uh I
think of musicians. Like, there's some
Bob Dylan songs that to me, uh I
understand the individual words,
I like to think there's an emotion
associated with it, at least I
experience some sort of emotion, and I
have a guess about what he was
experiencing, but if I were to just read
it linearly without the music and
without him singing it or somebody
singing it like him, it wouldn't hold
any meaning. So, in other words,
uh words that seem to have meaning, but
not associated with language, but
somehow tap into an emotionality.
Yep, absolutely. So, so we call this
difference um semantic communication,
communication with meaning, and
affective communication, communication
that has more of an emotional
feeling content to it, you know, but not
with, you know, the semantics. And the
two can be mixed up. Like, with singing
words that have meaning, but also have
this affective emotional you just love
the sound of the singer that you're
hearing.
And uh
initially um
uh you know, psychologists, scientists
in general thought that these were going
to be controlled by different brain
circuits.
Uh and in and it is the case there are
emotional brain centers in the
hypothalamus, in the cingulate cortex,
and so forth that do give tone to the
sounds.
But um
I believe, you know, based upon imaging
work and work we see in birds when when
birds are communicating semantic
information in their sounds, which is
not too often, but it happens, versus uh
affective communication, saying because
I'm trying to attract the mate, my
courtship song, or defend my territory,
it's the same brain circuits. It's the
same speech-like or song circuits are
being used in different ways.
Uh a friend of mine who's also a
therapist uh said to me, you know, it's
possible to say I love you with intense
hatred, and to say I hate you with
intense love, and uh reminded me that
it's possible to hear both of those
statements uh in either way. So, uh I
guess it's not just limited to song or
poetry, it also um there's something
about the intention
and the emotional context in which
something's spoken that it can heavily
shape the way that uh we interpret what
we hear. That's right. And and and I
consider all of that actually meaning,
even though I defined it as
as people commonly do, semantic and
affective communication,
affective communication to say I hate
you, but meant love, right? Is um
does have emotional meaning to it. You
know, and so, you know, one's more like
an object kind of meaning or an abstract
kind of meaning.
Th- There's several other points here I
think it's important for for the those
listening out there to hear, is that
when I say also this effective and um
semantic communication um being used by
similar brain circuits, it also matters
the side of the brain. Uh in birds and
in humans,
um there's there's left-right dominance
uh for learned uh communication, learned
sound communication. Uh so the left in
us humans is more dominant for speech,
but the right has a more balanced for
singing or processing musical sounds as
opposed to processing speech. Both get
used for both reasons. And so when
people say your right brain is your
artistic brain and your left brain is
your thinking brain, this is what
they're referring to. Uh and uh so
that's another distinction. The second
uh thing that's useful to know
is that all vocal learning species use
their learned sounds for this emotional,
effective kind of communication,
but only a few of them, like humans and
some parrots and dolphins, use it for
the semantic kind of communication we
calling speech.
And and that has led a number of people
to hypothesize that the evolution of
spoken language, of speech, evolved
first for singing, uh for this more like
emotional kind of mate attraction, like
the Jennifer Lopez, the Ricky Martin
kind of songs and so forth. Uh and then
later on, it became used for abstract
communication like we're doing now. How
interesting. Well, that's a perfect
segue for me to be able to ask you about
your background um
and motor control not only of the hands
but of the body. So you have a number of
important distinctions to your name, but
one of them um is that you were a member
of the Alvin Ailey Dance uh
school school of dance school of dance.
Um so you're you're an accomplished or
and quite able dancer, right? Um tell us
a little bit about your um background in
the the world of dance and as
how it informs your interest in
neuroscience, excuse me, and perhaps
even how it relates specifically to your
work on speech and language. Yes.
Well, it's it's interesting and then
this kind of history even goes before my
time. So, in my family, my mother and
father's side, they both went to the
High School of Music and Art here in New
York City. Uh and particularly my
mother's family going back multiple
generations, they were singers. And I
even did my family genealogy and found
out not only, you know, we have some
relationships to some well-known
singers, distant relationships like
Thelonious Monk, but going back to the
plantations in North Carolina and so
forth, my ancestors were singers in the
church for the you know, the towns and
so forth. And this somehow got passed on
multiple generations to my family and I
thought I was going to grow up and be a
famous singer, right? And my me and my
brothers and sister formed a band when
we were kids and and so forth and but it
turned out that I didn't inherit the
singing talents of some of my other
family members even though, you know, I
was
you know, okay, you know, but not like
my brother, not like my mother or my
aunts and my cousin Pute Fe who's now a
talented Native American singer. And so
um
so
uh
what
that then influenced me to do other
things and I started uh
you know, competing in dance contests.
Uh you know, actually this is around the
time of the Saturday Night Fever and I
was as a teenager and I started winning
dance contests and I thought, oh, I can
dance. And I auditioned for the High
School of Performing Arts and I got in
here in New York City uh and got into a
ballet dance and got in, right? And and
thought if I learn ballet, I can learn
everything else. It was that idea if you
learn something classical, it can teach
you for everything else.
Uh and I was yeah, at Alvin Ailey dance
school, Joffrey Ballet dance school. And
at the end of my senior uh
uh concert, uh I was had this
opportunity to audition for the Alvin
Ailey dance company, and I had an
opportunity to go to college. And I also
fell in love with another passion that
my father had, which was science.
And so I liked science in high school,
and I found an overlap also between the
arts and sciences. You know, both
require creativity, hard work,
discipline, you know, new discovery.
Both weren't boring to me.
And the one decision I made at that at
that senior dance concert was, you know,
when talking to the Alvin Ailey
recruiter and thinking about it, I have
to make a decision.
And I thought
something my mother taught me, because
she was grown up in the 1960s cultural
revolution, do something that has
a positive impact on society. And I
thought I can do that better as a dancer
than a scientist.
So now jump,
I get into college,
undergraduate school, I major in
molecular biology and mathematics. I
decide I want to be a biologist, got
into graduate school, wanted to study
the the brain at you know, at the
Rockefeller University. So I went from
Hunter College to Rockefeller
University. And so now I got to the
brain. And I And why did I choose the
brain? It's because it controls dancing.
But I didn't There wasn't anybody
studying dancing. Now I wanted to study
the brain, something that it does that's
really interesting and complex. And I
thought, ah, language is what it does.
You couldn't study that in mice, you
couldn't study in non-human primates,
but these birds do this wonderful thing
that Fernando Nottebohm was studying at
Rockefeller. And so that's what got me
into the birds.
Uh and um
uh and then jumping now 15 years later,
you know,
yeah, that's right. Even after I'm into
now having my own lab studying vocal
learning in these birds as a model for
language in humans, it turns out that uh
uh you know, Ani Patel and uh you know,
others uh have discovered um that uh
only vocal learning species can learn
how to dance.
Is that right?
That's right. Yes.
That I So, I've seen these I'm just
scrolling through the the files here in
my in my mind. I think about every once
in a while someone will I love uh
parrots. Um every once in a while
someone will send me one of these little
Instagram or Twitter videos of a parrot
doing what looks to me like dance.
Typically, it's a cockatoo. That's
right. That's right.
even foot stomping to the sound and with
famous one called Snowball out there,
but there are there are many Snowballs
out there. Yes.
They're all All the dancing birds are
named Snowball? Oh, that's an
interesting tactic. Um
so, only animals with language dance.
Yeah, vocal learning in particular, the
ability to imitate sounds.
Yes. Incredible. Yes. And this now is
bringing my life full circle.
All right? And I And And so, when that
was discovered in 2009,
uh
at that same time in my lab at Duke, we
had discovered that vocal learning brain
pathways in songbirds as well as in
humans and in parrots, right? Like
Snowball,
uh are embedded within circuits that
control learning how to move.
And that led us to a theory we call the
brain pathway or motor theory of vocal
learning origin.
Where the brain pathways for vocal
learning and speech evolved by a whole
duplication of the surrounding motor
circuits involving learning how to move.
Now, how does that explain dance, right?
Well,
when when Snowball, the cockatoos, are
dancing, they're using the brain regions
around their speech-like circuits to to
do this dancing behavior. And so, what's
going on there? What we what we
hypothesize and now like to test is that
when this when when speech evolved in
humans and the equivalent behavior in
parrots and songbirds,
it required a very tight integration in
the brain regions that can hear sound
with the brain regions that control your
muscles from moving your larynx and
tongue and so forth for producing sound.
And that tight auditory motor
integration, we argued then contaminated
the surrounding brain regions.
And that contamination of the
surrounding brain regions now allows
us humans in particular and parrots to
coordinate our muscle movements of the
rest of the body with sound in the same
way we do for speech sounds.
Well, So we're speaking with our bodies
when we dance. Incredible. And and I
have to say that as poor as I am at
speaking multiple languages, I'm even
worse at dancing. So
But I guarantee you're better than a
monkey. Uh but not Snowball the
cockatoo. Maybe not Snowball. You on
YouTube we have a video where there's
some scientists dancing with Snowball
and you'll see Snowball's doing better
than some of the scientists.
Okay, well as long as I'm not the worst
of all scientists at dancing.
Um
There's always neuroplasticity. May it
save me someday.
You said something incredible that I I I
completely believe even though I have um
minimum to let's just say minimum
dancing ability. Okay, I can get by at a
party or wedding without complete
embarrassment, but I don't have any
structured training.
So
the body clearly can communicate with
movement. I as a trained dancer and
knowing other trained dancers,
I always think of
dance and bodily movement and
communication through bodily movement as
a form of wordlessness, like a state of
wordlessness. In fact, the the few times
when I think that maybe I'm actually
dancing modestly well for the context
that I'm in, where I see other people
dancing and they seem to just be very
much in the movement, it's almost like a
state of non-language,
non-spoken language.
Mhm.
Um
and
and yet what you're telling me is that
there's a a direct bridge at some level
between the the movement of the body and
and language. So, is there a language of
the body that is distinct from the
language of speech? And
if so, or if not, how do those map onto
one another? What does that Venn diagram
look like?
Yeah. Yeah. So, so So, let me define
first dance in this context of vocal
learning species. This is the kind of
dancing that we are specialized in doing
and other in the vocal learning species
are specialized in doing is
synchronizing body movements of muscles
to the rhythmic beat of music. And for
some reason, we like doing it. We like
synchronizing to sound
and doing it together as a group of
people.
And that kind of communication amongst
ourselves
is more like the effective kind of
communication I mentioned earlier,
unlike the semantic kind. So, we humans
are using our voices more for the
semantic abstract communication, but
we're using learned dance for the
effective emotional bonding kind of
communication.
It doesn't mean we can't communicate
semantic information in dance, and we do
it.
Um but it's not as popular. You know,
like a ballet that, you know, in the
Nutcracker. It is popular, you know,
where they are communicating, you know,
um the Arabian guy comes out, which I
was the Arabian guy in the ballet
Nutcracker. That's how I remember it.
Yeah, for the Westchester Ballet Company
when I was a teenager. Uh
you know, we're we're trying to
communicate meaning in our ballet
dancing and it can go on with a whole
story and so forth. And but people don't
interpret that as clearly as speech. You
know, they're seeing the ballet with
semantic communication with a lot of
emotional content.
Whereas you go out to a club, you know,
yeah, you're you're not coming
communicating here. Okay, how are you
feeling today? Tell me about your day
and so forth. You're trying to
synchronize with other people in an
effective way. And I think that's
because
the the dance brain circuit inherited
the more ancient part of the speech
circuit which was for singing.
I always had the feeling that with
certain forms of music, um in particular
opera, but any kind of um music where
there are some long notes um sung that
at some level there was a a literal
resonance created between the singer and
the listener. That um
or I think of like the deep voice of a
of a Johnny Cash or where at some level
you can almost feel the voice in your
own body.
Mhm. And
in theory that could be the the
vibration of the
the or the firing of the phrenic nerve
controlling the diaphragm for all I
know. Is there any evidence that there's
a coordination between performer and
audience at the at the level of mind and
body?
Um
I'm going to say possibly yes. Uh and
the reason why is because I just came
back from a conference on the
neurobiology of dance.
Uh um that Clearly I'm going to the
wrong meetings.
uh you know Vision science can be so
boring. Yes. Well, one of my colleagues
took a picture and uh Jonathan Fritz
they or organized or particular section
on on this conference in Virginia.
And this is the first time I I in the
room with
so many neuroscientists studying the
neurobiology of dance. It's a new field
now in the last 5 years.
And
there was one
a lab where they were putting EEG
electrodes on the dancers
on two different dancers partnering with
each other
as well as
the audience.
You know, seeing the dance and and some
you know, argued okay, if you're
listening to the music as well, how you
respond because you're you're asking a
question about music and I'm giving you
an answer about dance.
And what they found is that
you know,
the dancers when they resonated with
each other during the dance or the
audience listening to the dancers and
the music, there was some resonance
going on there that they score is higher
resonance. Their brain activity with
these wireless EEG signals are showing
something different. And so that's why I
say possibly that it needs to it needs
more rigorous study.
And you know, this is some stuff they
published but it's not prime time yet.
But they're trying to figure this out. I
love it. So at least
if I can't dance well, maybe I can hear
and feel what it is to dance in a
certain way.
That's right. And and and this will be
some people will think that they even
songs that they hear
and they can almost sing to themselves
in their own head and they know what
they want it to sound like and you know
when it really sounds good what it
sounds like but they can't get their
voice to do it.
I'm raising For those listening, I'm
raising my hand. No no musical ability.
Others in my household have tremendous
musical ability with instruments and
with voice but
not me.
and and so this is one of my one of my
selfish goals of trying to find the
genetics
of why is can some people sing really
well and some not. Is there some genetic
predisposition to that? And then can I
modify my own muscles or brain circuits
to sing better?
You're still after the the sing. I guess
this is what happens when siblings are
um varying in proficiency, is that that
competitiveness among
brothers and sisters never goes away.
I've been trying to breathe as good as
my brother Mark and Victor, you know,
for uh the the whole my entire life.
All right, watch out Mark and Victor,
he's coming for you with neuroscience to
to back him.
Earlier you said that you discovered
that you could dance.
That that caught my ear. Um it sounds
like you didn't actually have to I'm not
suggesting you didn't work hard at it,
but that at the moment where you
discovered it, um it just sort of was a
a skill that you had that up until that
point you didn't target a a life in in
the world of dance, but the fact that
you quote unquote discovered that you
could dance really well and then went to
this incredible school of dance and and
did well, um tells me that perhaps there
is a an ability that was built up in
childhood and/or that perhaps we do all
have different genetic leanings for for
different uh motor functions. Yeah.
Well, the for me there could be both
explanations could be possible. For the
first, um
yeah, I grew up in a family listening to
Motown songs, you know, dancing, you
know, at uh parties and so forth, family
parties, and you know, an
African-American family basically, and
uh
uh so so I grew up dancing uh from a
young child, um but this
this discovery, you know, maybe dancing
even more so uh
uh
in terms of a of a talent,
it could the genetic component, if it
really exists, I don't know. You know,
with my 23andMe uh results, you know, it
says I have uh the genetic uh
substitutions that are associated with
uh you know, high-intensity athletes and
fast-twitch muscles. And who knows?
Maybe that could have has to do with me
being able to synchronize
uh
uh my body
to rhythmic sounds
maybe maybe better than some others.
It turns out that my genetics also show
that I have genetic substitute that
doesn't that makes it hard for me to
sing on pitch.
And so that does correlate with my you
know even though I can sing on pitch
especially if I hear a piano
or you know it's kind of playing it but
you know maybe that's why my sibling you
know who didn't have that genetic
predisposition in his 23andme results
you know could go along with the genetic
component as well. I'm imagining family
gatherings with 23andme data and intense
arguments about it and innate learned
ability. Fun.
Love to be in attendance at I'm not
inviting myself to your Thanksgiving
dinner by the way but I suppose I am.
You're welcome to. Thank you.
I'll bring my 23andme data.
I'd love to chat a moment about facial
expression because that's a form of
motor pattern that you know I think for
most people out there
just think about smiling and frowning
but there are of course you know
thousands if not millions of micro
expressions and things of that sort many
of which are subconscious
and we are all familiar with the fact
that when what somebody says doesn't
match some specific feature of their
facial expression that it can
call you know that mismatch can queue
our attention especially among who know
each other very well like you somebody
will say well you said that but you your
right eye twitch to the you know a
little bit in a way that tells me that
you didn't really mean that this these
kinds of things or
when
the in the opposite example when the
emotionality and the content of our
speech is matched to a facial expression
there's something that's just so
wonderful about that because it seems
like everything's aligned.
Yeah. So, how does the motor circuitry
that controls facial expression map on
to the the brain circuits that control
language, speech, and even bodily and
hand movements?
Yeah. Uh you you you ask a great
question because we both know some
colleagues like Win rich wall that
Rockefeller University who study facial
expression and the neurology behind it
and now we both share some students that
we're co-mentoring and talk about this
same question that you brought up and
what I'm learning a lot is that
non-human primates have a lot of
diversity in their facial expression
like we humans do. And what we know
about the neurobiology
of brain regions controlling those
muscles of the face is that these
non-human primates and some other
species that don't learn how to imitate
vocalizations, they have
strong connections from the cortical
regions to the motor neurons that
control facial expressions.
But absent connections or weak
connections to the motor neurons that
control the voice.
So, I think our diverse facial
expression, even though it's more
diverse in these non-human primates,
there was already pre-existing diversity
of communication whether it's
intentional or unconscious through
facial expression in our ancestors.
And on top of that, we humans now add
the voice
uh along with those facial expressions.
I see. The and in terms of language
learning when we're kids, I mean I don't
children fortunately are not told to
fake their expressions or to smile when
they say I'm happy. Um
so, at some point everybody learns for
better or for worse how to
uh
untangle these different components of
hand movement, body posture, speech, and
facial expression.
Yes. But in it in their best form, I
would say um
assuming that the best form is always I
guess there are instances where, you
know, for safety reasons one might need
to feign some of these
some of these aspects of language, but
in most cases when those are aligned,
it seems like that could reflect that
all the different circuitries are
operating in parallel, but that the
ability to misalign these is also
a powerful aspect to our maturation. I I
even think of theater, for instance,
where deliberate disentangling of of
these areas is important, but also we
know when an actor when it feels real.
Yeah. Um, and when it looks like when
bad acting is often times when the
facial expression or body posture just
doesn't quite match what we're hearing.
Yeah. Uh, so
are these skills that that people that
learn and acquire according to
adaptability and profession or do you
think that all children and all adults
eventually learn how to couple and
uncouple these circuits a little bit?
Yeah, I I think it's it's the similar
argument I mentioned earlier about the
innate and the learned for the
vocalizations. And by the way, when I
say we humans have facial expressions
associated with our vocalizations in a
different way than primates, non-human
primates, it's the learned vocalizations
I'm talking about. So, there is a
common view out there that facial
expressions in non-human species like
non-human primates or you can have them
in birds, too, are um
innate.
All right? And so, they're they're
they're reflexive control. I don't
believe that. I think there's some
learned component to it, and I think we
have more learning component to it as
well.
But,
we also have an innate component. And
so, if you try to put your hands behind
your back and and hold your fists or
even just not and try to speak and try
to communicate, it's actually harder to
do. You have to force yourself or put it
by by your side.
This comes naturally. Facial expressions
comes naturally because there's an
innate component. And yes, you have to
learn how to dissociate the two,
communicate something angry with your
hands or with your face, but um you
know, uh politely with your voice. It's
very hard to distinct to separate out
those two because there is that innate
component that brings them together.
Um
so it's like an email, too. You're
you're emailing and someone says
something by email, someone can
interpret that angrily or or gently. Um
and it it be becomes ambiguous. The
facial expressions get rid of that
ambiguity. I'm so glad you brought that
up because my next question was and is
about written language. Uh the first
question I'll ask is when you write
either type or write things out by hand,
do you hear the content of what you want
to write in your head? You just you
personally.
Yes, I do. Yeah, I I I and I know that I
do because I was trying to figure out a
debate about this issue and trying to
resolve the debate with my own
self-experimentation on me. I asked that
because a a quite well-known colleague
of ours, Karl Deisseroth, at Stanford,
who's been on this podcast and is you
know, optogenetics fame and psychiatry
fame, etc.
I I know him. Yeah, um he sends his
regards.
Told me that um
his practice for writing and for
thinking involves a quite painful
um process of forcing himself to sit
completely still
and think in complete sentences, to
force thinking in complete sentences.
And when he told me that, I decided to
try this exercise and it's quite
difficult. First of all, it's difficult
for the reason that you mentioned, which
is that with many thoughts I want to
look around and I start to gesticulate
with my hands. So there it is again, the
connection between language and hand
movement, even if one isn't speaking.
And the And the other part is that I
that's challenging is I realized that
while we write in complete sentences
most of the time, we'll talk about how
that's changing now and texting, etc.,
that
we don't often think in complete
sentences and specifically in simple
declarative sentences. That a lot of our
thoughts would be if were if they were
written out onto a page would look
pretty much like passive language that a
good copy editor or a good editor would
say, "Oh, like we need to cross this
out, make this simple and declarative."
So, what I'm getting at here is what is
the process of going from a thought to
language to written word. And
I also wanted to touch on handwritten
versus typed. But thought to language to
written word, what's going on there?
What do we know about the neural
circuitry?
And I was going to ask why is it so
hard, but now I want to ask why is this
even possible? It seems like a very
challenging neuro-computational problem.
Yeah. Yeah. And and from coming from the
linguistic world and even just the
regular neurobiology world,
going back to something I said before is
about a separate language module in the
brain. You know, there was this thought
or hypothesis that this language module
has all these complex algorithms to
them.
And they're signaling to the speech
circuit how to produce the sounds, the
hand circuit how to write them or
gesture, uh the visual pathway on how to
interpret them from reading,
uh and the auditory pathway for
listening.
I don't think that's the case, all
right? Uh and you know, that this
thinking where where there's this
internal speech going on. What I think
is going on is to explain what you're
asking is about
that I'm going to take it from the
perspective of something. You read
something on a paper,
the signal from the paper goes through
your eyes, it goes to the back of your
brain to your visual cortical regions
eventually. Uh and then you now got to
interpret that signal in your visual
pathway
of what you're reading. How are you
going to do that in in turn speech? That
visual signal then goes to your speech
pathway in the motor cortex in front
here in Broca's area.
And you silently speak what you read in
your brain without moving your muscles.
Sometimes actually, if you put
electrodes EEG
uh EMG electrodes on your
laryngeal muscles, even on birds you can
do this, you'll see activity there while
you're reading or or or trying to speak
silently even though no sound's coming
out.
And so your
speech pathway is now speaking what
you're reading.
Now to finish it off, that signal is
sent to your auditory pathway so you can
hear what you're speaking in your own
head.
That's incredible.
And this is why it's complicated because
you're using like three different
pathways, the visual, the speaking motor
one, and the auditory to read. Oh, and
then you got to write. Right? Okay, here
comes the fourth one. Now the hand area
that's next to your speech pathway has
got to take that auditory signal or even
the adjacent motor signals for speaking
and translate it into a visual signal on
paper.
So you're So you're using at least four
brain circuits
uh
which includes the speech production and
the speech perception pathways to write.
Incredible.
And
finally explains to me why when I So I
was weaned teaching undergraduates,
graduate students, and medical students,
and I have observed that
when I'm teaching, I have to stop
speaking if I'm going to write something
on the board. I just have to stop all
speaking completely. Right. Turns out
this is an advantage to catch because it
allows me to catch my voice. It allows
me to slow down a bit, um you know,
breathe and inhale some oxygen, and so
on because I tend to speak quickly if
I'm not writing something out. So,
there's a break in the circuitry for me.
Or at least they are distinct enough
that I have to stop and then write
something.
Yes, that that that that does imply
competing brain circuits for your
conscious attention.
We have colleagues um up at Columbia Med
who are known, at least in our circles,
for dictate voice dictating their
papers, not writing them out, but just
speaking into a voice recorder. Uh I've
written papers that way. It doesn't feel
quite as natural for me as writing
things out, but not because I can go
quickly from thought to language to
typing. I type reasonably fast. I can
touch type now. I don't think I ever
taught my I I think I taught myself. I
never took a touch typing course. It
just sort of happened now. I think my
motor system seems to know where the
keys are with enough uh
uh
enough accuracy that it works.
The
This is remarkable to me that any of us
can do this, but
when it comes to writing, what I've
found is that if my rate of thought and
my rate of writing are aligned nicely,
things go well.
Uh
however, if I'm thinking much faster
than I can write, that's a problem. And
certainly if I'm thinking more slowly
than I want to write, that's also a
problem. And the solution for me has
been to write with a pen. I'm in love
with these and I have no relationship to
the company, at least not now, although
if they want to come you know, if they
want to work with us, I love these Pilot
V5 V7s because not necessarily because
of the ink or the the feel, although I
like that as well, but because of the
rate that it allows me to write. They
write very well slowly and they write
very well quickly.
Mhm. And so, I've have this theory
supported only by my own anecdata, no
peer-reviewed study, that
writing by hand is fundamentally
different than typing out information.
Mhm. Is there any evidence that this
motor pathway for writing
is
better
or somehow different than the motor
pathway for for typing?
Yeah, that that's interesting. Um and I
don't know of any studies. Um I have my
own personal experience as well, but
trying to put this into the context, if
I had to,
you know, design an experiment to test
the hypothesis here that you know, to
explain your experience and mine is that
writing by hand, I'm I would argue
requires a different set of
less skills with the fingers
than typing.
So, you have you have to coordinate your
fingers more in opposite directions and
so forth
with typing. Uh but also writing by hand
requires more arm movement.
Uh and so, therefore,
I would argue that the
um
the the difficulty there could be in the
types of muscles and the fine motor
control you need of those muscles along
with speaking in your brain at the same
time. So, basically, I'm coarse. I'm a
brute. And so, it makes sense that I
would have a more primitive writing
device would work.
That's right. Yes. But but let me let me
add to this in terms of the
I my own personal experience, right?
What I find is
I can write I can write something faster
by hand
um for a short period of time compared
to typing. And that is because I think I
I run out of the energy in my arm
movements
faster than I run out of muscle energy
in my finger movements. Uh
and
I think it takes a longer time for us to
write words with our fingers because and
in terms of the speech. So
I think your writing whether it's by
hand or typing and your speech they only
will align very well if you can type as
fast as you can speak or write as fast
as you can speak in your head. I love
it. So what you've done if I understand
correctly is created a bridge between
thought and writing and that bridge is
speech. That bridge is speech. That's
right.
That's right. When you're writing
something out you're speaking it to
yourself.
And if you're speaking faster than you
can type you got a problem.
I see. I I do a number of podcast
episodes that are not with guests but
solo episodes and as listeners know
these are very long episodes often two
or more hours and
we joke around the podcast studio that I
I will get locked into a mode of speech
where some of it is more elaborate and
anecdotal and then I'll and then I'll
punch out simple declarative sentences.
I find it very hard to switch from one
module to the next. The thing that I
have done in order to
make that transition more fluid and prep
for those podcast episodes is actually
to read the lyrics of songs Mhm. and to
sing them in my head
as a way of warming up my vocal cords
but luckily for those around me
when I do that I'm not actually singing
out loud. And so this what you're
telling me
supports this idea that even when we are
imagining
singing or writing in our mind we are
exercising our vocal cords.
You're actually getting little low
potentials of electrical currents
reaching your muscles there which also
means you're exercising your speech
brain circuits too without actually you
know going with the full volume activity
in the muscles. Incredible. Yeah. And
this this idea of singing helps you as
well. Uh um
uh even with Parkinson's patients and so
forth, when they want to say something,
singing or listening to music helps them
move better. And the idea there is that
the brain circuits for singing, or let's
say the function of the brain circuits
for speech being used for singing first
is the more ancestral trait. And that's
why it's easier to do things with
singing sometimes than it is with
speaking. I love it.
Stutter is a um particularly interesting
case and and one that every once in a
while I I'll get questions about this
from our audience. Um
stutter is is complicated in in a number
of ways, but culturally um in my
understanding from these emails that I
receive is that um stutter can often um
cause people to hide and speak less Mhm.
because it can be embarrassing and we're
we are often not patient with with
stutter. We also have the assumption
that if somebody is stuttering, that
their thinking is slow, but it turns out
there many examples historically of
people who could not speak well, but who
were brilliant thinkers. Mhm. Um I don't
know how well they could write, but um
they found other modes of communication.
Uh I realize that you're not a a speech
pathologist or therapist, but uh what is
the current neurobiological
understanding of stutter and are uh
what's being developed in terms of
treatments for stutter? Yes, so
we actually uh
accidentally came across stuttering in
songbirds.
And we've uh published several papers on
this to try to figure out the
neurobiological basis. The first study
we had was
a brain area
uh called the basal ganglia, this what's
the the striatum part of the basal
ganglia, involved in coordinating
movements, learning how to make
movements.
When it was damaged in these in this in
the speech-like pathway in these birds,
what we found is that they started to
stutter
as the brain region recovered.
And unlike humans, they actually
recovered after three or four months.
And why is that the case? Because bird
brains undergoes new neurogenesis in a
way that human or mammal brains don't.
Uh and it was the new neurons that were
coming in into the circuit, uh but not
quite, you know, with the right proper
activity,
uh was resulting in this stuttering in
these birds.
Uh and after it was repaired, not
exactly the old song came back as a
after repair, but still it recovered a
lot better. And it's now known, they
call this neurogen- neurogenics uh
stuttering in humans, uh with damage to
the basal ganglia or some type of
disruption to the basal ganglia at a
young age also causes stuttering in
humans. And even those who are born with
stuttering, uh um it's it's often the
basal ganglia uh that's disrupted than
some other brain circuit. And we think
the speech part of the basal ganglia.
Can adults who maintain a stutter from
childhood uh repair that stutter? They
can repair it with uh therapy, with
learning how to speak slower, uh
learning how to tap out a rhythm. There
is some And yeah, I'm not a speech
pathologist, but I started reading this
literature
uh and talking to others that, you know,
um colleagues who actually study study
stuttering. So, yes, there there there
are ways to overcome the stuttering
through um
through uh you know, behavioral therapy.
Uh and I think all of the uh tools out
there
have something to do with sensory motor
integration. Uh controlling what you
hear with what you output in a uh
thoughtful, controlled way helps reduce
the stuttering. There are a couple
examples from real life that I want to
touch on, and um one is somewhat
facetious, but um
but now I realize is is a serious
neurobiological issue. Serious meaning I
think interesting, which is that every
once in a while I will have a
conversation with somebody who says the
last word of the sentence along with me.
Mhm. And it seems annoying in some
instances, uh, but I'm guessing this is
just a breakthrough of the motor pattern
that they're hearing what I'm saying
very well. So, I'm going to interpret
this it kindly and think they're hearing
what I'm saying.
They're literally hearing it in their
mind.
Mhm. And they're getting that low-level
electrical activity to their throat, and
they're just joining me in the uh, in
the enunciation of what I'm saying.
Probably without realizing it. So, can
we assume that that might be the case?
Well, I I I wouldn't be surprised so
that you know, the motor theory of
speech perception where this idea
originally came, what you hear
is going through your speech circuit,
and then also activating those muscles
slightly.
Uh, so yes. Um,
so one might argue
okay, is that speech circuit now
interpreting what that person is
speaking? Now you listening to me, and
it's going to finish it off because it's
already going through their brain, and
they can predict it. That would be one
one theory. And I don't think the
verdict out there is known, but that's
one. The other is
uh, synchronizing turn-taking in in the
in the um, conversation.
Where you're acknowledging that we
understand each other uh, by finishing
off what I say. Uh, and it's almost like
a social bonding kind of thing. The
other could be I want the person to shut
up so I can speak as well and take that
turn. And and each pair of people have a
rhythm to their conversation. And if you
have somebody who's over-talkative
versus under-talkative or vice versa,
that rhythm can be lost in them
finishing ideas and going back and
forth. But I I think
having something to do with turn taking
as well makes a lot of sense. I have a
colleague at Stanford who says that
interruption is a sign of interest.
I'm not sure that everyone agrees. I
think it's highly contextual.
Yes. But there is this form of of a
verbal nod.
Mhm. Uh saying mhm or things of that
sort. And there many of these
and I'm often told by my audience, you
know, that I don't interrupt my guests
and things of that sort. Often times
I'll just get caught in the natural flow
of the conversation.
Right. Uh but
Well, I I I think we've had pretty good
turn taking here, I hope.
So far so good. I'm I'm glad I'm glad
you feel that way because especially in
the context of a discussion about
language, it seems important.
Um
Texting
is a very very interesting evolution
of language because
what you've told us is that we have a
thought, it's translated into language.
It might not be complete sentences, but
texting, I have to imagine this is the
first time in human evolution where
we've written with our thumbs. So I
don't know, you know, it seems more
primitive to me than typing with fingers
or writing hands, but hey, who am who am
I to judge the evolution of our species
in one direction or the other?
But
the shorthand
grammatically often grammatically
deficient incomplete sentence form of
texting is an incredible thing to see.
Um
Early in relationships, romantic
relationships, people will often
evaluate the other's text and their
ability to use proper grammar and
spelling, etc. This often quickly
degrades and there's an acceptance that
we're just trying to communicate through
shorthand. Almost um
military like shorthand, but with
internally consistent between people,
but there's no general consensus of what
things mean. But, you know, um WTFs and
like and OMGs and all sorts of things.
I wonder sometimes whether or not we are
getting less proficient at speech
because we are not required to write and
think in complete sentences. Mhm. I I'm
not being judgmental here. I see this in
my colleagues. I see this in myself.
This is not a judgment of the younger
generation. Um
I also know that slang has existed
for
decades, if not hundreds of years, but I
also know that I don't speak the same
way that I did when I was a teenager
because I've suppressed a lot of that
slang. Not because it's inappropriate um
or offensive, although some of it was,
frankly,
um
but because it's out of context.
Mhm. So, what do you think's happening
to language? Are we getting better at
speaking, worse at speaking, and what do
you think the role of things like
texting and tweeting and shorthand
communication, hashtagging,
uh what's that doing to the way that our
brains work? Yeah, I I think that um
uh one, in terms of uh you know,
uh
measuring your level of sophistication
and intelligence and you say OMG, right?
I I think that also could be a cultural
thing that uh you belong to the next
generation if you're you know, are you
being cool if you're an older person,
you know, using OMG and other things
that the the you know, younger
generation would use.
But,
uh if you really think about it clearly,
um
uh texting
actually has allowed for more rapid
communication amongst people.
I I I think with without the invention
of the phone before then, or you know,
uh texting back and forth, you had to
wait days for a letter to show up. You
you couldn't call somebody on the phone
and talk as well, you know, and so this
rapid communication, well, in terms of
the rapid communication of writing in
this case.
Um so, I think actually
it's it's more like a use it or lose it
kind of a uh um
thing with the brain. The more you use a
particular brain region or circuit, the
more enhanced. It's like a muscle.
Uh the more you exercise it, the more
healthier it is, the bigger it becomes,
and the more space it takes, and the
more you you lose something else.
So, I think texting I my is not
decreasing
uh the the the speech prowess or the
intellectual prowess of speech. It's
converting it and using it a lot in a
different way. Uh
in a way that may not be as rich in in
regular writing because uh you you can
only communicate so much nuance in
short-term writing. But, um whatever
that it whatever is being done, you got
people texting hours and hours and hours
on the phone. So, whatever your thumb
circuit is going to get pretty big,
actually.
I I
do wonder whether you know, many people
have lost their jobs based on tweets.
Mhm. Um the short latency between
thought and action and distribution of
one's thoughts is is incredible. Yes.
And and I'm not just talking about
people who have um who apparently would
have poor prefrontal top-down control.
This is geek speak, by the way, for
people that lack impulse control. But,
high-level academics, I'm not going to
point fingers at anyone, but examples of
in where you see these tweets and you
go, "What were they thinking?" Yep. Uh
so,
presumably there's an optimal uh
strategy between the the thought speech
motor motor pathway, especially when the
motor pathway engages communication with
hundreds of thousands of people, and
retweets in particular, and the cut and
paste function, and the screenshot
function are often the reason why speech
propagates. Yep. So, to me, it's it's a
little eerie that um the
just that the neural circuitry can do
this and that we are catching up a
little bit more slowly to the technology
and you've got these casualties of of
the that mismatch. I I think I think
that's a good adjective to use the
casualties
you know of what's going on because
yes it is the case with texting what
you're really losing there
is not less so the ability to write but
more the ability to interpret what is
being written and you can over under
interpret something that somebody means.
On the flip side of that you know when
if somebody's writing something very
quick
they could be writing instinctually more
instinctually their true meaning
and they don't have time to modify and
color code what they're trying to say
and that's what they really feel as
opposed to saying it in a more nuanced
way. So I think both sides of that
casualty
are are present and that's a downturn
you know
unintended
negative consequence of short term I
mean short word communication. Yeah I
agree that
this whole phenomenon could be netting
people that
normally would only say these things out
loud once inside the door of their own
home or not at all. Right. It's a it's
an interesting time that we're in
vis-a-vis speech and language and and
motor patterns. It's part of the human
evolution for language I I I think this
is all part of our evolution. That's
right. So for those of you thinking
terrible thoughts please put them in the
world and be a casualty and for those of
you that are not please be very careful
with how proficient your thought to
language to motor action
Yes.
goes. Maybe the technology companies
should install some buffers some AI
based buffers. Right that's taking some
EEG signals from your brain while you're
texting to say okay this this is uh you
know, this is not a great thought. Slow
down."
Right. Or this doesn't reflect your best
state.
That brings me to the what was going to
be the next question anyway, which is we
are quickly moving toward a time where
there will be an even faster transition
from thought to speech to motor output
and maybe won't require motor output.
What I'm referring to here is some of
the incredible work of our colleagues
Eddie Chang at UCSF and others who are
taking
paralyzed human beings um and learning
to translate the electrical signals of
neurons in various areas, including
speech and language areas, to computer
screens that type out what these people
are thinking. In other words, paralyzed
people can put their thoughts on in into
writing. That's a pretty extreme and
wonderful example of recovery of
function
that is sure to continue to evolve.
But I think we are headed toward a time
not too long from now where
my thoughts can be translated into words
on a page if I allow that to happen.
Yeah, so and Eddie Chang's work which I
admire quite a bit and cite in my papers
uh I think he's really one of those at
the leading edge
of trying to understand within humans
uh the neurobiology of speech. And he
may not say it directly, but I I talked
to him about this that supports this
idea
that the speech circuit and the separate
language module, I don't really
think that there's a separation there.
So with with that knowledge, yes, I'm
putting electrodes in the human brain
and then translating those electrical
signals to speech currents. Yeah, we can
start to tell what is that person
thinking. Why? Because we often think in
terms of speech.
Uh and um without saying words.
And that's a scary thought. And now
imagine if you can now translate those
into to that transmits something
wirelessly and someone from some distant
part of the planet is hearing your
speech from a wireless signal uh without
you speaking. Uh so
probably that won't be done in an
ethical way, who knows, you know, but uh
I mean, the ethics of doing that
probably, you know, might not happen,
but who knows, we have these songbirds.
You know, if we apply the same technique
to them, we can start to hear what
they're singing in their dreams or
whatever uh even though they don't
produce sounds, so we can find out by
testing on them. It's coming. One way or
another, it's coming.
For those listening who are interested
in getting better at speaking and
understanding languages, are there any
tools that you recommend? And here
again, I like I realize you're not a
speech therapist, but here I'm not
thinking about ameliorating any kind of
um
speech deficiency. I'm thinking, for
instance, do you recommend that people
read different types of writing?
Um would you recommend that people learn
how to dance in order to become better
at expressing themselves verbally? Um
you know, and feel free to have some
some degrees of uh freedom in in this
answer. This These are obviously not uh
peer-reviewed studies that we're
referring to or although there may be um
but I'm struck by the number of things
that you do exceedingly well, and I
can't help but ask
um well, the the singing the which I
realize it may your brother didn't pay
me to say this, may not be quite as good
as your brother's yet, but is getting
you'll surpass him, I'm I'm guessing at
some point. You're getting there.
Exactly. There you go. Um
you know,
should kids learn how to dance and read
hard books and simple books? Uh what do
you recommend? Should adults learn how
to do that? Everyone wants to know how
to keep their brain working better, so
to speak, but also I think people want
to be able to speak well, and people
want to be able to understand well.
Yeah. So,
what I've discovered personally, right,
is that So, when I switched from uh
pursuing a career in science from a
career in dance,
um I thought one day I would stop
dancing. Um but I haven't because it I
find it fulfilling for me. Um you know,
just as a life experience. So, ever
since I went started college, you know,
my uh late teens and early 20s, I I kept
dancing even till this day.
And there've been periods of time like
during the pandemic where I slowed down
on dancing and so forth. Um and and when
you do that, you realize, okay, there
there parts of your body where your
muscle tone decreases a little bit and
somewhat and or you could start to gain
weight or I somehow don't gain weight
that easily and I think it's related to
my dance, if that's that that's
meaningful to your audience. Um but what
I found is, you know, in in in science
we like to think of a separation between
movements and action and cognition. And
there is a separation between between
perception and production. Cognition
being perception, production being
movement, right? But, if the speech
pathway is next to the movement
pathways, what I discover is by dancing,
it is helping me
think. It is helping keeping my brain
fresh. It's not just moving my muscles.
I'm moving or using the the circuitry in
my brain to do control a whole big body,
you need a lot of brain tissue to do
that. And so, I argue if you want to
stay cognitively
intact into your old age, you better be
moving.
And you better be doing it consistently,
whatever it's dancing, walking, running,
and also practicing speech,
oratory speech and so forth, or singing
is controlling the brain circuits that
are moving your facial musculature. And
it's going to keep your cognitive
circuits also in tune. And I'm I'm
convinced of that from my own personal
experience.
Now, for me, uh long slow runs are a
wonderful way to kind of loosen the
joints for long podcasts. Uh especially
the solo podcast which can take many
hours to record and um without those
long slow runs, at least the day before
or even the morning of, I don't think I
could do it. At least not as well. All
right, well, you're you're experiencing
something similar. So, that's an N of 2.
Yeah, N of 2. Uh I'm I'm tempted to
learn how to dance because uh there are
a lot of reasons to learn how to dance.
People can use their imagination.
I definitely want to
get the opportunity to talk about some
of the newer work that you're into right
now
uh about genomes of animals. Um as you
perhaps can tell from my quite authentic
facial expressions, I I adore the animal
kingdom. I just find it amazing and it's
what the reason I went into neurobiology
in part. Um
so many animals, so many different
patterns of movement, so many body
plans, so many specializations.
What is the value of learning the
genomes of all these animals? Yeah.
You know, I can think of uh
conservation based, you know, schemes of
trying to preserve these precious uh
critters. Um but what are you doing with
the genomes of these animals? What do
you want to understand about their brain
circuits and how does this relate to
some of the discussion we've have been
having up until now?
Yeah, I I I've gotten very heavily
involved in genomes um
you know, not just to get at an
individual gene involved in the trait of
interest like spoken language,
um but
I realized that
you know, nature has done natural
experiments for us.
Um with all these species out there with
these various traits
and the one that I'm studying like vocal
learning has evolved multiple times
among the animal kingdom. Even if it's
rare, it's multiple times.
And
uh
the similar genetic changes occurred in
those species. But to find out what
those genetic changes that are
associated with the trait of interest
and not some other trait like flying in
birds as opposed to
singing, um you have to do what's called
comparative genomics, even in the
context of studying the brain. And you
need their genomes to compare the
genomes and do like a GWAS, a
genome-wide association study, not just
within a species like humans, but across
species. And so you need uh good genomes
to do that.
Plus,
I've discovered I'm also interested in
evolution and origins. How did these
species come about a similar trait in uh
in in last, you know, 300 million years
or 60 million years, depending who
you're talking about. Uh and you need a
good phylogenetic tree to do that. And
to get a good phylogenetic tree, you
also need their genomes.
And so because of this, I got involved
in large-scale consortiums to produce
genomes of many different species,
including my vocal learners and my their
closest relatives that I'm fans of. Uh
but I couldn't convince the funding
agencies to give me the money to to do
that just for my own project. But when
you get a whole bunch of people together
who want to study various traits, you
know, um heart disease or what or loss
and gain of flight and so forth,
suddenly we all need lots of genomes to
do this.
And so now that got me into a project to
lead something called the Vertebrate
Genomes Project to eventually sequence
all 70,000 species on the planet. Uh and
uh Earth BioGenome Project, all
eukaryotic species, all 2 million of
them.
Uh and and to no longer
be in a situation where I wish I had
this genome, now we have the genetic
code of all life on the planet, create a
database of all their traits, and find
the genetic association with everything
uh out there that makes a difference
from one species to another.
Uh one more piece of uh
of the equation to add to this story
is what I didn't realize as a
neuroscientist were that these genomes
are not only incomplete,
uh but they have lots of errors in them.
False gene duplications where mother and
father chromosomes were so different
from each other that the genome
algorithm assembly algorithms treated
them as two different genes in this part
of the chromosome.
Uh so there are a lot of these false
duplicated genes that people were
thought were real but were not, or
missing parts of the genome because the
enzymes used to sequence the DNA
couldn't get through this regulatory
region that folded up on itself, uh and
uh made it hard to sequence.
And so I end up in in these consortiums
uh
pulling in the the genome sequencing
companies developing the technology to
work with us to improve it further, and
the computer science guys who then take
that data and that technology and try to
make the complete genomes and make the
algorithms better to produce
what we now just did recently and uh led
by an effort by Adam Phillippy is the
first human telomere-to-telomere genome
with no errors, all complete, no missing
sequence. And now we're trying to do the
same thing with vertebrates uh and other
species. Actually, we improved that even
before we got to the what we call
telomere-to-telomere from one end of the
chromosome to another.
And what we're discovering
is in this dark matter of the genome
that was missing before
turns out to be some regulatory regions
that are specialized in vocal learning
species and we think are involved in in
developing speech circuits. Incredible.
Well, so much to learn and that that
we're going to learn from this
information. What Early on in these
genome projects and connectome projects,
I confess I was a little bit cynical.
This would be about 10, 15 years ago. I
I thought, okay, necessary but not
sufficient for anything. Uh we need it,
but it's not clear what's going to
happen. But you just gave a very clear
example of what we stand to learn from
this kind of information. And um
I and I know from the conservation side,
there's a huge interest in this because
even though we would prefer to keep all
these species alive rather than clone
them, they're
these sorts of projects do offer the
possibility of potentially recreating
species that were lost due to our own
ignorance or um missteps or what have
you. Yes.
And and along those lines,
uh
because, you know, we got involved in
genomics, some of the first species that
we start working on are critically
endangered species. And I'm doing that
not only for uh
for under, you know, perspective to
understand their brains and the genes
involved in their brain function, but I
feel like it's a moral duty. So, the
fact that now I've become more involved
in genome biology and have helped
develop these tools for more complete
genomes, let's capture their their
genetic code now before they're gone. Uh
and could we use that information uh to
resurrect the species at some future
time, if not in my lifetime, in sometime
in the future in generations ahead of
us.
And so, um
in do in anticipation of that, we
created a database we call the Genome
Ark,
uh
and and no pun intended, like Noah's
Ark, uh meant to store the genetic code
as complete genome assemblies as
possible for all species on the planet,
uh to be used for basic science, but
also at some point in the future.
Uh and because of that, uh funding
agencies or private foundations that are
interested conservation have been
reaching out to me now, a
neuroscientist,
uh to help them out in producing
high-quality genome data of endangered
species that they can use like Revive
and Restore, who want to resurrect the
passenger pigeon, or Colossal, who wants
to resurrect the woolly mammoths.
And so, we're producing high-quality
genomes for these groups for their
conservation projects. What a terrific
and important initiative. And I think
for those listening today, they now
certainly understand the value of under
of
deeply understanding the brain
structures and genomes of different
species because
I confess, even though I knew that a bit
of the songbird literature, and I
certainly understand that humans have
speech and language, I had no idea that
there was so much convergence of
function, structure, and genomes. And to
me, you know, I feel a lot more like a
an ape than I do a songbird. And And
yet, here we are with the understanding
that there's a lot more similarity
between songbirds and humans than I
certainly ever thought before.
Yeah, something very close to home for
us humans I can give you an example of
is evolution of skin color.
Uh in
in skin color, we use it unfortunately
for racism and so forth. We use it also
for good things to let in more light or
let out less light, depending on the
part of the planet, you know, our
population evolved in. And most people
think dark-skinned people all evolved
from the same dark-skinned person, and
light-skinned people all evolved from
the same light-skinned person, but
that's not the case.
Dark skin and light skin amongst humans
has evolved independently multiple
times, like in, you know, the Pacific
Islands versus Africa. And it And it
It's just depending on the angle of
light hitting the Earth as to whether
you need more protection from the sun or
less protection.
To That's also associated with vitamin D
synthesis uh, in the skin. And so, um,
and each time,
um,
uh, where a darker or lighter skin
evolved independently, it hit the same
gene, you know, um, you know, the melat-
um,
Melanin? Melanin receptors, that's
right. Yes, yeah. Uh, genes that are
involved in melanin formation. Uh, and
so, um,
those genes evolved some of the same
mutations, even in different species.
It's not just humans. Uh, in equatorial
regions, there are darker-skinned
animals than going away from the equ-
equator.
All right, I think of Arctic foxes and
things like that.
Polar bears, you know. And so, uh,
and so, some of the same genes are used
in in in an evolutionary perspective to
evolve in a similar way within and
across species. Incredible.
Yeah. And that's same thing happening in
the brain, too. Language is no
exception. Well, I have to say, as
somebody who is a, you know, career
neuroscientist, but as I mentioned
several times now, who adores the animal
kingdom, but is
also obsessed with speech and language,
and, um, at a distance, not as a as a
practitioner of of uh, music and dance,
um, this has been an incredible
conversation and opportunity for me to
learn. I'm I know I speak for a
tremendous number of people when I I
just really want to say thank you for
joining us today. You are incredibly
busy. It's clear from your description
of your science and your knowledge base
that you are involved in a huge number
of things, um, very busy. So, thank you
for taking the time to speak to all of
us.
Thank you for the work that you're doing
both on speech and language, but also
this important work on genomes and, um,
conservation uh, of endangered species
and far more. And I have to say,
uh, if you would agree to come back and
speak to us again sometime, I'm certain
that if we were to sit down even 6
months or a year from now, there's going
to be a lot more to come.
have some things cooking, and, uh, and
thank you for inviting me here to get
the word out to the community
of what's going on in the science world.
Well, we're honored and very grateful to
Eric. Thank you. You're welcome.
Thank you for joining me today for my
discussion with Dr. Eric Jarvis. If
you'd like to learn more about his
laboratory's work, you can go to
jarvislab spelled j a r v i s lab all
one word jarvislab.net
and there you can learn about all the
various studies taking place in his
laboratory as well as some of the large
overarching themes that are driving
those studies including studies on human
genomics and animal genomics
that surely are going to lead to the
next stage discoveries of how we learn
and think about and indeed use language.
If you're learning from and or enjoying
this podcast, please subscribe to our
YouTube channel. That's a simple zero
cost way to support us. Please also
subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and
Apple and on both Spotify and Apple, you
have the opportunity to leave us up to a
five-star review.
If you have questions or comments or
suggestions about topics you'd like us
to cover or guests you'd like us to
interview on the Huberman Lab podcast,
please put those in the comment section
on YouTube. We do read all those
comments and we do take them to heart.
Please also check out the sponsors
mentioned at the beginning of today's
podcast and check out Momentous
Supplements our new partners in the
supplement space and check out Athletic
Greens. That's the best way to support
this podcast. If you're not already
following us on social media, please do
so. We are Huberman Lab on Twitter and
we are also Huberman Lab on Instagram
and both places I cover science and
science-related tools some of which
overlap with the content of the Huberman
Lab podcast but much of which is unique
from the content covered on the Huberman
Lab podcast. Again, that's Huberman Lab
on Instagram and Huberman Lab on
Twitter. Please also check out our
Neural Network monthly newsletter. This
is a newsletter that has summaries of
podcast episodes. It also includes a lot
of actionable protocols. It's very easy
to sign up for the newsletter. You go to
hubermanlab.com, click on the menu, go
to newsletter. You supply your email,
but we do not share your email with
anybody. We have a very clear and
rigorous privacy policy, which is we do
not share your email with anybody. And
the newsletter comes out once a month,
and it is completely zero cost. Again,
just go to hubermanlab.com and go to the
Neural Network newsletter. I'd also like
to point out that the Huberman Lab
podcast has a clips channel. So, these
are brief clips, anywhere from 3 to 10
minutes, that encompass single concepts
and actionable protocols related to
sleep, to focus, interviews with various
guests. We talk about things like
caffeine, when to drink caffeine
relative to sleep,
alcohol, when and how and if anyone
should ingest it relative to sleep,
dopamine, serotonin, mental health,
physical health, and on and on. All the
things that relate to the topics most of
interest to you. You can find that
easily by going to YouTube, look for
Huberman Lab clips in the search area,
and it will take you there. Subscribe,
and we are constantly updating those
with new clips. This is especially
useful, I believe, for people that have
missed some of the earlier episodes or
you're still working through the back
catalog of Huberman Lab podcast, which
admittedly can be rather long. And last,
but certainly not least, thank you for
your interest in science.