The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths
Open accessAbstract
Neuromyths are misconceptions about brain research and its application to education and learning. Previous research has shown that these myths may be quite pervasive among educators, but less is known about how these rates compare to the general public or to individuals who have more exposure to neuroscience. This study is the first to use a large sample from the United States to compare the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among educators, the general public, and individuals with high neuroscience exposure. Neuromyth survey responses and demographics were gathered via an online survey hosted at TestMyBrain.org. We compared performance among the three groups of interest: educators (N=598), high neuroscience exposure (N=234), and the general public (N=3045) and analyzed predictors of individual differences in neuromyths performance. In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that a core group of 7 “classic” neuromyths factored together (items related to learning styles, dyslexia, the Mozart effect, the impact of sugar on attention, right-brain/left-brain learners, and using 10% of the brain). The general public endorsed the greatest number of neuromyths (M=68%), with significantly fewer endorsed by educators (M=56%), and still fewer endorsed by the high neuroscience exposure group (M=46%). The two most commonly endorsed neuromyths across all groups were related to learning styles and dyslexia. More accurate performance on neuromyths was predicted by age (being younger), education (having a graduate degree), exposure to neuroscience courses, and exposure to peer-reviewed science. These findings suggest that training in education and neuroscience can help reduce but does not eliminate belief in neuromyths. We discuss the possible underlying roots of the most prevalent neuromyths and implications for classroom practice. These empirical results can be useful for developing comprehensive training modules for educators that target general misconceptions about the brain and learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2298 · Cited by 3,563
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x · Cited by 2,147 · cited 6×
“Regarding learning styles theory, a meta-analysis from Pashler et al. (2008) reviewed findings from rigorous research studies testing learning styles theories and concluded that there was an insufficient evidence base to support its application to educational contexts.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe analysis of count data: a gentle introduction to poisson regression and its alternatives.
Coxe, S., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2009) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223890802634175 · Cited by 1,172
From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders
PENNINGTON, B. (2006) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.008 · Cited by 1,167
Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition
Kuhl, P. K. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038 · Cited by 798 · cited 1×
“For example, the question “There are specific periods in childhood after which certain things can no longer be learned” is false in most cases, but some well-informed participants correctly pointed to areas of sensation and lower-level perception where this statement is true (i.e., Kuhl, 2010).”
BackgroundHartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614567339 · Cited by 788
Self-citationGermine, L., Nakayama, K., Duchaine, B. C., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., & Wilmer, J. B. (2012) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9 · Cited by 669
Self-citationDyslexia: A New Synergy Between Education and Cognitive Neuroscience
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1171999 · Cited by 525
Bloch, M. H., & Qawasmi, A. (2011) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.06.008 · Cited by 417
Johnson, M., Östlund, S., Fransson, G., Kadesjö, B., & Gillberg, C. (2009) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054708316261 · Cited by 198
Cited by
Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects
Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2019) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12973 · Cited by 265
Hattie, J., & O’Leary, T. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2017-08-10
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 1314-1314
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2739263819
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 10.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
- The paper
- Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
