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 = 3,045) 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.

The predictors of developing reading skill are well known, and there is increasing coherence around predictors of developing math as well. These achievement skills share strong relations. Less knowledge is available regarding the extent to which predictors overlap and predict one another, particularly longitudinally, and across different types of reading and math. We followed kindergarten students (n = 193) for one year, evaluating a range of relevant predictor skills in kindergarten, and a range of relevant achievement outcomes (core, fluency, complex) of reading and math in grade 1. Few predictors differentially predicted math versus reading with some exception (phonological awareness and rapid naming for reading; counting knowledge for math). The pattern was more similar for core and fluency outcomes relative to complex ones. A small set of predictors accounted for much of the overlap among math and reading outcomes, regardless of type (core, fluency, or complex). Results have the potential to inform the development of early screening tools to consider both achievement domains simultaneously, and support the importance of following students identified as at-risk in one domain for their performance in both domains.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (CCHS) is a rare disorder characterized by respiratory system abnormalities, including alveolar hypoventilation and autonomic nervous system dysregulation. CCHS is associated with compromised brain development and neurocognitive functioning. Studies that evaluate cognitive skills in CCHS are limited, and no study has considered cognitive abilities in conjunction with psychosocial and adaptive functioning. Moreover, the roles of pertinent medical variables such as genetic characteristics are also important to consider in the context of neurocognitive functioning. Methods: Seven participants with CCHS ranging in age from 1 to 20 years underwent neuropsychological evaluations in a clinic setting. Results: Neurocognitive testing indicated borderline impaired neurocognitive skills, on average, as well as relative weaknesses in working memory. Important strengths, including good coping skills and relatively strong social skills, may serve as protective factors in this population. Conclusion: CCHS was associated with poor neurocognitive outcomes, especially with some polyalanine repeat expansion mutations (PARMS) genotype. These findings have important implications for individuals with CCHS as well as medical providers for this population.