Socio-cognitive biases are associated to belief in neuromyths and cognitive enhancement: A pre-registered study

Neuroscience explanations really do satisfy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the seductive allure of neuroscience

Extraneous neuroscience information improves ratings of scientific explanations, and affects mock juror decisions in many studies, but others have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using 60 experiments from 28 publications. We found a mild but highly significant effect, with substantial heterogeneity. Planned subgroup analyses revealed that within-subjects studies, where people can compare the same material with and without neuroscience, and those using text, have stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using brain image stimuli. We serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger on outcomes of evaluating satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. In conclusion, there is more than one type of neuroscience explanations effect. Irrelevant neuroscience does have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.

Neurofeedback on twitter: Evaluation of the scientific credibility and communication about the technique

Neurofeedback is a popular technique to induce neuroplasticity with a controversial reputation. The public discourse on neurofeedback, as a therapeutic and neuroenhancement technique, encompasses scientific communication, therapeutic expectations and outcomes, as well as complementary and alternative practices. We investigated twitter publications from 2010 to 2022 on the keyword "neurofeedback". A total of over 138 k tweets were obtained, which originated from over 42 k different users. The communication flow in the neurofeedback community is mainly unidirectional and non-interactive. Analysis of hashtags revealed application fields, therapy provider and neuroenhancement to be the most popular contents in neurofeedback communication. A group of 1221 productive users was identified, in which clinicians, entrepreneurs, broadcasters, and scientists contribute. We identified reactions to critical publications in the twitter traffic and an increase in the number of tweets by academic users which suggest an increase in the interest on the scientific credibility of neurofeedback. More intense scientific communication on neurofeedback in twitter may contribute to promote a more realistic view on challenges and advances regarding good scientific practice of neurofeedback.

Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About Neuroscience and Education—Do Freshmen and Advanced Students Differ in Their Ability to Identify Myths?

Addressing and creating awareness on the topic of neuromyths in educational sciences has increased in recent years. We know very little about how widespread the belief in neuromyths is among pre-service teacher students and whether this belief affects their subsequent approach to teaching and consequently possibly also the performance of their students. The aim of the study was to analyze students’ belief in neuromyths, focusing on differences between freshmen ( N  = 82) and advanced students ( N  = 74) studying in pre-service teacher education. Using a questionnaire approach, students had to judge whether given statements were objectively wrong (i.e., “Neuromyths”) or objectively correct (i.e., “Neurofacts”). They could also choose the option “I don’t know”. For each statement, we asked students to indicate how self-confident they were about their answer. Furthermore, students’ self-assessment of their need for cognition and ability-related academic self-concept was measured. Results reveal no significant difference between freshmen and advanced students for identifying the myths correctly, but a significant difference for identifying the facts correctly, showing that freshmen identified slightly more facts correctly than advanced students. Self-confidence plays an important role here, as we see that within the master students, students with high self-confidence values identified more facts correctly.

Prevalence of neuromyths among psychology students: small differences to pre-service teachers

Neuroscience will possibly aid the educational practice but neuromyths are prevalent worldwide. Certain misconceptions about learning, memory and the brain are prevalent in different groups and hard to dispel. Bridging the gap might be too far. However, Psychology may serve as a bridge between these distant fields. The present study examined neuromyth endorsement in psychology students. An online questionnaire based on 20 neuromyths and 20 neurofacts was used. Additionally, neuroscience exposure at university and media exposure was assessed. The sample consisted of psychology students (N = 116) in Austria and was compared to a teacher-training sample. The different groups were compared using Signal Detection Theory, Chi-square test, non-parametric correlation analyses, and independent sample t-test. No correlation between neuroscience exposure at university and leisure time for psychology students at the beginning of their studies could be found. Here, the same misconceptions were among the most prevalent-compared to the teacher-training students sample. Results show significant difference between the groups on discrimination ability and response bias. Although psychology students share the same most prevalent misconceptions, they differ significantly in their amount of agreement. The reported study reveals a better discernment ability and lower response bias on neuromyths in the Psychology students' sample. On the individual item level, they performed better at rejecting some neuromyths than pre-service teachers. In conclusion, some neuroscience and pedagogical psychology training improves the ability to discriminate between true and false statements. Therefore, directly addressing these misconceptions within the study program-Teacher Training and Psychology-could reduce neuromyth endorsement.

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

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.

Evidence of the psychological effects of pseudoscientific information about COVID-19 on rural and urban populations

This research aims to analyze the effects of pseudoscientific information (PI) about COVID-19 on the mental well-being of the general population. A total of 782 participants were classified according to the type of municipality in which they lived (rural municipalities and urban municipalities). The participants answered psychometric questionnaires that assessed psychological well-being, pseudoscientific beliefs and the ability to discriminate between scientific and pseudoscientific information about COVID-19. The results indicated the following: the greater the ability to discriminate between false information and true information, the greater the levels of psychological well-being perceived by the participant. The ability to discriminate predicts up to 32% of psychological well-being only for subjects living in rural municipalities. Residents in urban municipalities showed lower levels of well-being than residents in rural municipalities. It is concluded that new social resources are needed to help the general population of urban municipalities discriminate between pseudoscientific and scientific information.

Why do teachers believe educational neuromyths?

BACKGROUND

It is not well understood whether qualified teachers believe neuromyths, and whether this affects their practice and learner outcomes.

METHOD

A standardised survey was administered to practising teachers (N = 228) to determine whether or not they believe fictional (neuromyth) or factual statements about the brain, the confidence in those beliefs, and their application.

RESULTS

Although factual knowledge was high, seven neuromyths were believed by >50% of the sample. Participants who endorsed neuromyths were generally more confident in their answers than those who identified the myths. Key neuromyths appear to be incorporated into classrooms.

CONCLUSION

Australian teachers, like their overseas counterparts, have some neuroscience awareness but are susceptible to neuromyths. A stronger partnership with neuroscientists would addresss the complex problem of disentangling brain facts from fictions, and provide better support for teachers. This study uncovered psychometric weaknesses in the commonly used neuromyth measure that future research should address.

Neurophilia is stronger for educators than students in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Educational products claiming to be "brain-based" are common. Due to neurophilia, including a brain in a product's marketing can enhance perceptions. However, schooling background may play a protective role.

OBJECTIVE

As previous neuromarketing research has been conducted predominantly in English speakers, we examined whether the effects of neurophilia extend to a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian population.

METHOD

Teachers and students (N = 262) viewed one of four advertisements for a hypothetical product translating to ''Right Brain'' or ''Right Start'' Training; half the advertisements contained an MRI brain image. Participants rated their perceptions of interest, efficacy, and scientific rationale.

RESULTS

The presence of a brain image or the word 'brain' did not influence responses. However, occupation had a significant effect: teachers' ratings were higher than students' ratings. Importantly, teachers were more susceptible to neurocontent, rating "Right Brain" training significantly higher than students.

CONCLUSION

These results thus highlight the need to improve teachers' neuroscience literacy.