ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Educational neuromyths in higher education: beliefs about the brain and learning among university faculty members.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Educational neuromyths are plausible but unsupported generalizations about the brain that can shape instructional decisions. This cross-sectional study examined their endorsement among 269 participating university faculty members in Ecuador. Recruitment followed a non-probability procedure that was not documented in the available records, so the results describe this sample and are not nationally representative. The Spanish-language survey contained 21 belief statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on published reviews and meta-analyses, 11 statements were classified as established neuromyths or unsupported general claims, four as evidence-aligned statements, and six as context-dependent or overgeneralized statements that were not scored dichotomously. Item agreement was summarized with Wilson 95% confidence intervals. An exploratory 15-item scientific-alignment indicator and a clustered generalized estimating equation model were also used. Agreement was highest for learning-style matching (90.7%), generalized transfer from brain games (83.3%), hemispheric dominance (75.0%), cross-lateral integration exercises (74.7%), and use of only a small part of the brain (72.8%). Participants endorsed a mean of 6.02 of 11 neuromyths, and 98.1% endorsed at least one, while agreement with four evidence-aligned statements averaged 91.9%. The mean scientific-alignment score was 44.0%. In the exploratory adjusted model, women had higher odds of an aligned response than men (adjusted odds ratio = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [1.17, 2.13]), an exploratory association detected under the primary specification, which did not survive false-discovery-rate correction when neutral responses were excluded, and that requires replication and should not be read as an inherent gender difference; no statistically robust association was detected for experience, academic degree, specialized training, or most information sources, although the absence of a detected association does not establish that these factors are unrelated to alignment. The findings indicate that, in this sample, accurate knowledge and neuromyths can coexist at participant level: the correlation between evidence-aligned knowledge and neuromyth endorsement was weak and positive (Spearman
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.