Biography
B. A. Physics
Department of Physics
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
M. S. Physics
Department of Physics and Astronomy
San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
M. A. Speech-Language Pathology
Department of Communication Disorders
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
M.A. Advisor: Dr. Nancy Pearl Solomon
Ph.D. Speech-Language Pathology
Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Doctoral Advisor: Dr. Mary R. T. Kennedy
Minor: Cognitive and Biological Psychology:
Department of Psychology
Advisor: Dr. Chad J. Marsolek
Department of Physics
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
M. S. Physics
Department of Physics and Astronomy
San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
M. A. Speech-Language Pathology
Department of Communication Disorders
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
M.A. Advisor: Dr. Nancy Pearl Solomon
Ph.D. Speech-Language Pathology
Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Doctoral Advisor: Dr. Mary R. T. Kennedy
Minor: Cognitive and Biological Psychology:
Department of Psychology
Advisor: Dr. Chad J. Marsolek
Research Interests
My research focuses on the neuroscience of cognition, language, and learning, and on training-induced neuroplasticity for clinical applications. I apply behavioral and neuroimaging methods to investigate cognitive and communicative function, dysfunction, and treatment effects in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and in individuals with aphasia (language impairment after acquired brain injury). I see mentorship of graduate and undergraduate students, teaching in general, and service to the profession, to Texas State University (TXST), and to the community, as integral to my research.
Neuroscience of Learning and Cognition
Within the broad areas of learning and cognition, I focus on metamemory, implicit memory, executive functions, and the effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Metamemory is awareness and control of one’s learning and memory processes. An example is when a student studying for an exam reflects on how well he/she has learned and memorized a topic (called “Judgment of Learning”, or JOL) and then allocates study time accordingly. In contrast, implicit memory refers to altered processing of a stimulus if it (or related stimuli) has been recently experienced, whether or not the individual is aware of this. For example, if you just finished buying fruits and I ask you to say a word that starts ba______, you are more likely to respond quickly with “banana”. Whereas if you had just finished depositing money at Wells Fargo, the response to the same question might have been “bank”. Thus, the implicit memory of recent experience “primes” you (i.e., improves accuracy and/or response time) whether or not you are aware of this. Finally, executive function refers to higher level cognitive processes necessary for a host of superordinate functions such as reasoning, problem solving, and behavioral self-regulation.
My early research involved artificial neural network modeling of implicit memory in the visual object identification system. This was part of a larger project with my mentor, the late Dr. Chad Marsolek of my alma mater, and other colleagues. Our paper (“Identifying objects impairs…”; Marsolek et al., 2010) provided converging lines of evidence from neuroimaging, behavioral experiments, and artificial neural network models (my contribution to the project), that suggested that priming objects in the visual system may cause antipriming (decreased accuracy and response time) for similar but distinct objects. The paper was published in the prestigious journal NeuroImage and won the editor’s choice award. Several co-authors and I have built on this work by investigating just how similar visual objects must be in order to interfere and cause antipriming. My two main co-authors are TXST faculty, so we plan to revise and submit to another journal in 2027.
Connecting these findings to metamemory and brain injury, my colleagues and I investigated whether or not priming and antipriming can affect metamemory in individuals with TBI (who are often over-confident in metamemory judgments). We found that antipriming decreased individuals’ overconfident Judgments of Learning (“Implicit memory influences…”; Ramanathan et al., 2014). However, this study left an important question about the mechanism of action unanswered. These issues were addressed in a follow-up study which I and my former doctoral student, Dr. André Lindsey (Nevada State University), recently published; Ramanathan & Lindsey, 2026).
Finally, André and I have collaborated with Dr. Michael Stevens of the Olin Neuropsychiatric Research Center at Hartford Hospital (a co-author of the Aphasiology paper described below) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to investigate the neural substrates of Judgments of Learning. Data collection and analyses are complete. I expect to submit the manuscript in 2026.
Training-Induced Neuroplasticity for Clinical Applications
My second focal area investigates the neuroplastic and clinical effects of rehabilitative therapy for individuals with TBI and stroke. My colleagues and I (including former graduate student co-author Heather Turner) published an empirical study in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Aphasiology (“Intensive cognitive rehabilitation…”; Ramanathan et al., 2019). We investigated the neural consequences of intensive cognitive rehabilitative therapy on TBI using magnetic resonance imaging. A second study, published in 2022, investigated cognitive adaptation in those demonstrating a high degree of recovery of executive functions and Judgments of Learning after TBI (“Memory and executive functions…”; Ramanathan et al., 2022). I received extramural funding (“Effects of intensive…”; Firedoll Foundation) to generate pilot data for resubmission of a Switzer Research Fellowship (“Intensive cognitive rehabilitation…”) application for a high-quality single-case design building on this work. The Switzer application was not funded. However, I was selected to participate in the National Institutes of Health Engagement and Access for Research-Active Institutions (NIH EARA) pilot project. Through the training, I hope to revise the application and submit it as an R-15 or R-21 to the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR) in 2027.
After achieving promotion and tenure at CSUEB, I added a new line of research to investigate the possibility of training the right cerebral hemisphere to process primary language functions (typically carried out by the left hemisphere). Without access to a magnetic resonance imaging system, I obtained training in electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potential (ERP) methodology from Dr. Brian Gonsalves at CSUEB. I then trained a number of graduate students in these methods and began collecting pilot data. We presented the preliminary pilot data as a small part of a broader 90-minute seminar at the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association, spring 2023 (“The role of the right…”; CSHA Handout). Starting at TXST in Fall 2023, I obtained IRB approval to run the study, and mentored six juniors in EEG/ERP data collection. In 2024 I received an REP grant to provide these students with stipends to carry out the full data collection for this study. This will then lay the foundation for a broader clinical study investigating whether individuals with aphasia due to a left hemisphere stroke can be trained to use the intact right hemisphere to take over language function.
MRI is not available at TXST, so I am learning functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) as a neuroimaging tool to build on the above lines of research.
Neuroscience of Learning and Cognition
Within the broad areas of learning and cognition, I focus on metamemory, implicit memory, executive functions, and the effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Metamemory is awareness and control of one’s learning and memory processes. An example is when a student studying for an exam reflects on how well he/she has learned and memorized a topic (called “Judgment of Learning”, or JOL) and then allocates study time accordingly. In contrast, implicit memory refers to altered processing of a stimulus if it (or related stimuli) has been recently experienced, whether or not the individual is aware of this. For example, if you just finished buying fruits and I ask you to say a word that starts ba______, you are more likely to respond quickly with “banana”. Whereas if you had just finished depositing money at Wells Fargo, the response to the same question might have been “bank”. Thus, the implicit memory of recent experience “primes” you (i.e., improves accuracy and/or response time) whether or not you are aware of this. Finally, executive function refers to higher level cognitive processes necessary for a host of superordinate functions such as reasoning, problem solving, and behavioral self-regulation.
My early research involved artificial neural network modeling of implicit memory in the visual object identification system. This was part of a larger project with my mentor, the late Dr. Chad Marsolek of my alma mater, and other colleagues. Our paper (“Identifying objects impairs…”; Marsolek et al., 2010) provided converging lines of evidence from neuroimaging, behavioral experiments, and artificial neural network models (my contribution to the project), that suggested that priming objects in the visual system may cause antipriming (decreased accuracy and response time) for similar but distinct objects. The paper was published in the prestigious journal NeuroImage and won the editor’s choice award. Several co-authors and I have built on this work by investigating just how similar visual objects must be in order to interfere and cause antipriming. My two main co-authors are TXST faculty, so we plan to revise and submit to another journal in 2027.
Connecting these findings to metamemory and brain injury, my colleagues and I investigated whether or not priming and antipriming can affect metamemory in individuals with TBI (who are often over-confident in metamemory judgments). We found that antipriming decreased individuals’ overconfident Judgments of Learning (“Implicit memory influences…”; Ramanathan et al., 2014). However, this study left an important question about the mechanism of action unanswered. These issues were addressed in a follow-up study which I and my former doctoral student, Dr. André Lindsey (Nevada State University), recently published; Ramanathan & Lindsey, 2026).
Finally, André and I have collaborated with Dr. Michael Stevens of the Olin Neuropsychiatric Research Center at Hartford Hospital (a co-author of the Aphasiology paper described below) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to investigate the neural substrates of Judgments of Learning. Data collection and analyses are complete. I expect to submit the manuscript in 2026.
Training-Induced Neuroplasticity for Clinical Applications
My second focal area investigates the neuroplastic and clinical effects of rehabilitative therapy for individuals with TBI and stroke. My colleagues and I (including former graduate student co-author Heather Turner) published an empirical study in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Aphasiology (“Intensive cognitive rehabilitation…”; Ramanathan et al., 2019). We investigated the neural consequences of intensive cognitive rehabilitative therapy on TBI using magnetic resonance imaging. A second study, published in 2022, investigated cognitive adaptation in those demonstrating a high degree of recovery of executive functions and Judgments of Learning after TBI (“Memory and executive functions…”; Ramanathan et al., 2022). I received extramural funding (“Effects of intensive…”; Firedoll Foundation) to generate pilot data for resubmission of a Switzer Research Fellowship (“Intensive cognitive rehabilitation…”) application for a high-quality single-case design building on this work. The Switzer application was not funded. However, I was selected to participate in the National Institutes of Health Engagement and Access for Research-Active Institutions (NIH EARA) pilot project. Through the training, I hope to revise the application and submit it as an R-15 or R-21 to the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR) in 2027.
After achieving promotion and tenure at CSUEB, I added a new line of research to investigate the possibility of training the right cerebral hemisphere to process primary language functions (typically carried out by the left hemisphere). Without access to a magnetic resonance imaging system, I obtained training in electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potential (ERP) methodology from Dr. Brian Gonsalves at CSUEB. I then trained a number of graduate students in these methods and began collecting pilot data. We presented the preliminary pilot data as a small part of a broader 90-minute seminar at the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association, spring 2023 (“The role of the right…”; CSHA Handout). Starting at TXST in Fall 2023, I obtained IRB approval to run the study, and mentored six juniors in EEG/ERP data collection. In 2024 I received an REP grant to provide these students with stipends to carry out the full data collection for this study. This will then lay the foundation for a broader clinical study investigating whether individuals with aphasia due to a left hemisphere stroke can be trained to use the intact right hemisphere to take over language function.
MRI is not available at TXST, so I am learning functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) as a neuroimaging tool to build on the above lines of research.
Teaching Interests
Two prevalent conceptions of what the telos of a university should be are knowledge-discovery and service-provision. The former often prioritizes recruiting and training the “cognitive elite”, under the assumption that they are likely to generate the highest quality products (knowledge, skills, technology, literature, art, etc.), which would then benefit society at large. The latter telos views students as customers, particularly those seeking knowledge and skills for future employment; it therefore prioritizes opening up higher education to all members of society. Each perspective brings unique value to society. We do want to create a higher education environment that nurtures our best and brightest – breakthroughs in science, medicine, and other areas often come from such individuals, and we all benefit greatly. Yet, as civilization advances, and especially given the automation of formerly labor-intensive jobs, more and more work performed by the general adult population requires what would previously have been considered advanced training but is now becoming the norm – thus, higher education is not, and must not be, the sole purview of the cognitive elite.
Haidt (2016) claimed that universities cannot have more than one telos, one ultimate purpose, so we have to choose. I disagree; I think we can and *must* achieve both. In fact, the Texas State University mission statement encompasses several missions – knowledge discovery, cultural and economic development, preparation of students for professions, etc. However, the difficulty with multiple purposes is that their respective demands may conflict. For example, a feature of the elite telos is the setting of high, rigorous, objective standards for student achievement, irrespective of students’ preparation and circumstances (e.g., despite that students who represent the general population, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, may be less well prepared for an elite level of rigor). Conversely, a feature of the customer-service telos is an emphasis on student-satisfaction, which can prioritize students’ preferences over achievement; it is no secret that there has been nationwide rampant grade inflation and a lowering of standards over the last half century to satisfy students. While such conflicting pressures come with the challenge of prioritizing both purposes, I believe it is possible to pursue both at the same time and find balance. And that is my aim in teaching – to set appropriately high standards while finding ways to support students to achieve those standards.
Balancing the two teloi is not merely an intellectual exercise or a personal choice. In the field of communication disorders, our students will go on to be clinical professionals. As such, they must demonstrate excellence in their knowledge and skills. No parent wants their autistic child treated by a mediocre clinician; no one wants their elderly grandmother with a stroke to be seen by a clinician who doesn’t provide the highest level of care. Demonstrating excellence matters. At the same time, with the growth of the US population (through immigration, longer lifespans, and births), there is massive demand for clinicians, and a growing shortage. Further, US demographics have changed. As a first-generation immigrant from India in the 1960-s, I grew up in a nearly all-Caucasian community. Today, and especially in Texas, there are many different racial and ethnic communities, especially a large Hispanic community. Between the increased demand and changing demographics, it is critical that we recruit and train clinicians who are well-situated to understand and meet the needs of this broader contemporary population. Both purposes of the university are therefore critical.
The challenge is finding ways to maintain high standards of rigor, objective criteria for demonstration of knowledge and skills, and to avoid “dumbing down” the content or inflating grades, while at the same time making this education accessible to students from all backgrounds. For me, there is no one right way, no static solution which, once found, I can then continue to apply thereafter. I have taught university students, first as a graduate student in physics in the early to mid 1990-s, then as a graduate student in speech pathology in the early 2000-s, and then as a professor for the last 17 years. My pedagogy has had to change as I’ve moved from generation X, to Y, to Z, and from a middle and upper-middle class Caucasian-majority student body to one more representative of the broader population. And there has also been the continuous evolution of technology in the classroom.
So, what am I doing to achieve these two goals? A very important undertaking is to teach study strategies explicitly. Evidence-based practice guidelines for teaching and learning methods exist, but few students receive this information. (It is readily available through the Federal Department of Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse”). During the first two lectures of each undergraduate class, I explicitly teach which study strategies work (e.g., spaced learning, metacognitive self-monitoring of learning, practice self-testing, etc.) vs. which don’t work or have little supportive evidence (e.g., using a highlighter while reading, re-reading the text before an exam, etc.), or are outright counterproductive (e.g., effects of social media during lecture).
In undergraduate classes, I have students pre-read the text and take a quiz, to better prepare them for the upcoming week’s lectures. I use TopHat questions both for formative assessment and to increase student engagement. For undergraduate classes requiring problem solving (e.g., Speech Science), after working out examples I have them work alone or in groups to solve a similar problem and enter their answers anonymously into TopHat for class discussion. Then I model by solving the problem on the screen. I also provide extra-credit opportunities designed to enhance learning (e.g., Anatomy students may build a 3D model of the respiratory system and/or a 3D model of the larynx, Neuroanatomy students may color the drawings in the Brain Anatomy Coloring Book and/or build a 3-D brain model, etc.). Students appreciate the haptic nature of such activities, and routinely express their awareness of enhanced learning. I also make copious use of YouTube clips to demonstrate concepts.
My graduate disorders courses take a very different approach from my undergraduate classes, as the focus is on case-based clinical training, relying heavily on case-based problem solving. For example, in Motor Speech Disorders (CDIS 5336) I have students work in small groups to analyze neuroimaging reports and case histories, to develop appropriate clinical assessment or treatment plans. After the group work, we circle up as a class, and I model and elicit clinical critical thinking using a Socratic approach. Similarly, in Voice Disorders (SLHS 604 at my prior institution), I had students work in groups for differential diagnosis and treatment planning of real cases (including audio recordings, videoendoscopy recordings, case histories, etc.) all from my prior clinical work in hospital settings.
In terms of mentorship, I have an active research lab, with between 12 - 15 undergraduate and graduate students. I provide them with direct, hands-on mentoring in research methods, and training in specific skills for projects they may be working on. Weekly lab meetings address topics beyond the research itself, teaching them about the brain, mentoring strategies to improve graduate school application, etc. Last semester I introduced weekly 15-minute individualized meetings, to better mentor the students one-on-one and thereby target their needs in a more personalized way; they seem to enjoy this more tailored mentorship.
Beyond such direct student-facing efforts, I am also spearheading a multi-faculty Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) study implementing and evaluating evidence-based study-strategy instruction across courses. Additionally, I am leading a separate faculty team to develop a diagnostic assessment of incoming MS students’ foundational knowledge.
Haidt (2016) claimed that universities cannot have more than one telos, one ultimate purpose, so we have to choose. I disagree; I think we can and *must* achieve both. In fact, the Texas State University mission statement encompasses several missions – knowledge discovery, cultural and economic development, preparation of students for professions, etc. However, the difficulty with multiple purposes is that their respective demands may conflict. For example, a feature of the elite telos is the setting of high, rigorous, objective standards for student achievement, irrespective of students’ preparation and circumstances (e.g., despite that students who represent the general population, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, may be less well prepared for an elite level of rigor). Conversely, a feature of the customer-service telos is an emphasis on student-satisfaction, which can prioritize students’ preferences over achievement; it is no secret that there has been nationwide rampant grade inflation and a lowering of standards over the last half century to satisfy students. While such conflicting pressures come with the challenge of prioritizing both purposes, I believe it is possible to pursue both at the same time and find balance. And that is my aim in teaching – to set appropriately high standards while finding ways to support students to achieve those standards.
Balancing the two teloi is not merely an intellectual exercise or a personal choice. In the field of communication disorders, our students will go on to be clinical professionals. As such, they must demonstrate excellence in their knowledge and skills. No parent wants their autistic child treated by a mediocre clinician; no one wants their elderly grandmother with a stroke to be seen by a clinician who doesn’t provide the highest level of care. Demonstrating excellence matters. At the same time, with the growth of the US population (through immigration, longer lifespans, and births), there is massive demand for clinicians, and a growing shortage. Further, US demographics have changed. As a first-generation immigrant from India in the 1960-s, I grew up in a nearly all-Caucasian community. Today, and especially in Texas, there are many different racial and ethnic communities, especially a large Hispanic community. Between the increased demand and changing demographics, it is critical that we recruit and train clinicians who are well-situated to understand and meet the needs of this broader contemporary population. Both purposes of the university are therefore critical.
The challenge is finding ways to maintain high standards of rigor, objective criteria for demonstration of knowledge and skills, and to avoid “dumbing down” the content or inflating grades, while at the same time making this education accessible to students from all backgrounds. For me, there is no one right way, no static solution which, once found, I can then continue to apply thereafter. I have taught university students, first as a graduate student in physics in the early to mid 1990-s, then as a graduate student in speech pathology in the early 2000-s, and then as a professor for the last 17 years. My pedagogy has had to change as I’ve moved from generation X, to Y, to Z, and from a middle and upper-middle class Caucasian-majority student body to one more representative of the broader population. And there has also been the continuous evolution of technology in the classroom.
So, what am I doing to achieve these two goals? A very important undertaking is to teach study strategies explicitly. Evidence-based practice guidelines for teaching and learning methods exist, but few students receive this information. (It is readily available through the Federal Department of Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse”). During the first two lectures of each undergraduate class, I explicitly teach which study strategies work (e.g., spaced learning, metacognitive self-monitoring of learning, practice self-testing, etc.) vs. which don’t work or have little supportive evidence (e.g., using a highlighter while reading, re-reading the text before an exam, etc.), or are outright counterproductive (e.g., effects of social media during lecture).
In undergraduate classes, I have students pre-read the text and take a quiz, to better prepare them for the upcoming week’s lectures. I use TopHat questions both for formative assessment and to increase student engagement. For undergraduate classes requiring problem solving (e.g., Speech Science), after working out examples I have them work alone or in groups to solve a similar problem and enter their answers anonymously into TopHat for class discussion. Then I model by solving the problem on the screen. I also provide extra-credit opportunities designed to enhance learning (e.g., Anatomy students may build a 3D model of the respiratory system and/or a 3D model of the larynx, Neuroanatomy students may color the drawings in the Brain Anatomy Coloring Book and/or build a 3-D brain model, etc.). Students appreciate the haptic nature of such activities, and routinely express their awareness of enhanced learning. I also make copious use of YouTube clips to demonstrate concepts.
My graduate disorders courses take a very different approach from my undergraduate classes, as the focus is on case-based clinical training, relying heavily on case-based problem solving. For example, in Motor Speech Disorders (CDIS 5336) I have students work in small groups to analyze neuroimaging reports and case histories, to develop appropriate clinical assessment or treatment plans. After the group work, we circle up as a class, and I model and elicit clinical critical thinking using a Socratic approach. Similarly, in Voice Disorders (SLHS 604 at my prior institution), I had students work in groups for differential diagnosis and treatment planning of real cases (including audio recordings, videoendoscopy recordings, case histories, etc.) all from my prior clinical work in hospital settings.
In terms of mentorship, I have an active research lab, with between 12 - 15 undergraduate and graduate students. I provide them with direct, hands-on mentoring in research methods, and training in specific skills for projects they may be working on. Weekly lab meetings address topics beyond the research itself, teaching them about the brain, mentoring strategies to improve graduate school application, etc. Last semester I introduced weekly 15-minute individualized meetings, to better mentor the students one-on-one and thereby target their needs in a more personalized way; they seem to enjoy this more tailored mentorship.
Beyond such direct student-facing efforts, I am also spearheading a multi-faculty Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) study implementing and evaluating evidence-based study-strategy instruction across courses. Additionally, I am leading a separate faculty team to develop a diagnostic assessment of incoming MS students’ foundational knowledge.