ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Mapping perceived training gaps in educational neuroscience among Brazilian teachers.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Educational neuroscience has attracted substantial interest from teachers, but professional-development programs are often designed without a formal assessment of the difference between what educators believe they know and what they wish to learn. This secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey examined perceived training needs in educational neuroscience among 204 active Brazilian teachers. Participants rated, on six-point scales (0-5), their self-perceived knowledge and their desire to learn more about 10 neuroscience-related topics. We defined a training-gap indicator as the within-participant difference between desired knowledge and self-perceived knowledge, ranging from -5 to +5. Positive values indicated a perceived need for further training. Overall self-perceived knowledge was 2.86 ± 1.04, whereas desire to learn was 3.88 ± 1.10, producing a mean global training gap of 1.01 ± 1.15. A positive global gap was present in 69.6% of participants. All 10 topics showed significant positive gaps after false-discovery-rate correction. The largest gaps concerned neurodevelopment and brain plasticity, the adolescent brain, dyslexia/dysgraphia/dyscalculia, learning disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Global training needs did not differ by school sector or teaching level and were not independently associated with age, teaching experience, gender, or disciplinary background. Training-format preferences differed significantly, with individual reading and remote modalities rated more highly than in-person formats, although the overall effect size was small. These findings suggest that perceived demand for educational- neuroscience training is broad rather than confined to specific teacher subgroups. A topic-prioritized, flexible, and scientifically grounded curriculum may therefore be more useful than narrowly targeted initiatives based only on demographic or institutional characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.