Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33510675›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2020

The Persistence of Neuromyths in the Educational Settings: A Systematic Review.

Marta Torrijos-Muelas, Sixto González-Víllora, Ana Rosa Bodoque-Osma

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Relationship between cerebral dominance and learning styles in Anesthesiology residents].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Why does the brain matter for education?The British journal of educational psychology · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. False Beliefs about Mathematics in Spanish Pre-Service Teachers and Relations with Math Anxiety.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marta Torrijos-MuelasPsychology Department, Faculty of Education of Cuenca, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain.
Sixto González-VílloraDepartment of Physical Education, Arts and Music, Faculty of Education of Cuenca, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain.
Ana Rosa Bodoque-OsmaPsychology Department, Faculty of Education of Cuenca, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscience influences education, and these two areas have converged in a new field denominated "Neuroeducation." However, the growing interest in the education-brain relationship does not match the proper use of research findings. In 2007, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned of the misunderstandings about the brain among teachers, labeling them as neuromyths. The main objective here is to observe the prevalence of the neuromyths in educators over time. After two decades of publications of research on neuromyths among in-service or prospective teachers, this work presents a systematic scientific review. To select the articles, we used the words: "teachers," "preservice teachers," "neuromyths" combined with the Boolean data type "and." The search was filtered according to the following criteria: (a) identifiable author, (b) written in English, Spanish, French, Italian, or Portuguese, (c) word neuromyth in title, abstract, or keywords, (d) research with a participant's survey, (e) sample focused on educators, (f) peer-review publication index in JCR, SJR, or ESCI. The documents were found through Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Dialnet, ProQuest, EBSCO-host, and Google Scholar. After the search, 24 articles were identified as being of sufficiently high quality for this systematic review. This result highlights that neuromyths are still the subject of attention almost two decades after their definition. The findings present neuromyths as the consequence of a lack of scientific knowledge, a communicative gap between scientists and teachers, and the low-quality information sources consulted by teachers. In addition, the data on protectors and predictors of neuromyths is inconsistent. There is also no standard scientific methodology nor a guideline to determine a new neuromyth. The results show the need to improve the scientific content in higher education and the importance of in-service teacher training. This research justifies the requirement for university professors to be active researchers and to establish a close link with educators from other fields and levels. Neuroeducation will be the bridge that unites scientific knowledge and practical application in education, with a rigorous, standard method for the entire scientific-educational community.

Indexed as

educatorsneuroeducationneuromythsneurosciencepre-service teachersteachers

Identifiers

PMID33510675
PMCPMC7835631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.