Neuroscience Myths: What Brain Research Actually Supports
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroscience myths are persuasive stories about the brain that overstate, distort, or misapply genuine research. A popular statement may contain a true observation about neural specialization, chemical signaling, or experience-dependent change, while its sweeping conclusion remains unsupported. Reliable neuroscience begins by identifying the measurement, the experimental comparison, the inferential steps, and the limits of the population studied.
This evidence-based guide evaluates twelve widely repeated brain myths, explains the scientific findings behind them, and provides a practical framework for interpreting brain scans, claims about neurotransmitters, cognitive enhancement, learning, and clinical biomarkers. Our focus is the general science of brain–behavior relationships; disorder-specific diagnosis and treatment belong to their respective clinical evidence bases.
Quick answers: which neuroscience myths are false?
The claim that humans use only 10% of their brains is false. The idea that people have a single globally dominant “creative right brain” or “logical left brain” is unsupported, although hemispheric specialization is real. The three-layered “reptilian, emotional, rational brain” story does not accurately describe vertebrate evolution. Brain training generally improves the practiced tasks, with much weaker evidence for broad transfer into everyday abilities. fMRI activation maps are statistical displays of indirect physiological measurements, not pictures of thoughts. A single neurotransmitter shortage does not supply a comprehensive explanation of an individual's mental health.
Other statements require careful qualification. The adult nervous system remains plastic, but plasticity has constraints. Individual brain regions contribute distinct operations, but complex experiences depend on interacting networks. Neural decoding can reconstruct limited aspects of experience in controlled experiments, yet it does not establish universal or effortless mind reading.
What is a neuromyth?
In education and popular psychology, a neuromyth is a widely accepted misconception about the brain presented as if it followed from neuroscience. Such misconceptions include false anatomical claims, exaggerated interpretations of legitimate experiments, obsolete scientific models promoted as current consensus, and unvalidated practical recommendations. A myth may persist even after a well-supported correction because it provides an easy identity label or promises a quick intervention.
Several distinct evidence questions must be kept separate. Does a phenomenon occur? Can researchers measure it reliably? Does it cause a particular psychological function? Can a laboratory effect be reproduced in a different population or context? Does manipulating it improve a meaningful outcome? A positive answer to an earlier question never supplies an automatic answer to a later one. Reviews of educational misconceptions distinguish knowledge about neuroscience from evidence that particular instructional applications are effective Rousseau et al., 2024.
For a foundation in neural mechanisms and scientific methods, consult Cognitive Neuroscience: How the Brain Supports Thinking and Memory.
Myth 1: Humans use only 10 percent of their brains
The literal claim presupposes that approximately 90% of the brain is sitting idle and can be unlocked through a device, supplement, training routine, or unusual mental state. No credible anatomical, metabolic, electrophysiological, or neuroimaging evidence supports that dormant reserve. Different regions and cell populations have different responsibilities, many of which continue during rest or sleep. Even comparatively small lesions can cause substantial dysfunction depending on location and connectivity.
A common confusion begins with task-related fMRI maps: if a region is not highlighted in one experimental contrast, observers assume it is inactive. Such a map normally identifies a statistical difference in the blood-oxygen-level-dependent signal between specified conditions. The uncolored brain tissue may still be metabolically and electrically active; the statistical test was never designed to estimate the percentage of the brain being used. The classic Nature Neuroscience discussion of brain myths describes the problem.
The brain also benefits from regulated patterns of excitation and inhibition. Simultaneously maximizing activity throughout its tissue would disrupt the selective signaling needed for perception, movement, and cognition. Neural efficiency is task-specific and cannot be read from total activation alone. While the exact historical pathway by which “10 percent” entered popular culture is uncertain, the literal biological claim has no sound evidence.
Myth 2: A person is either left-brained or right-brained
The hemispheres show measurable asymmetries. Language-related operations are more frequently left-lateralized in many adults, whereas some visuospatial and attention processes show other patterns. The strength and direction of lateralization vary across functions and individuals; lesions and interhemispheric communication reveal how strongly both sides cooperate.
The popular leap assigns an entire personality to one hemisphere: a person becomes creative, intuitive, and emotional if “right-brained,” or analytical, rational, and mathematical if “left-brained.” That categorical typology has not been validated as a general neural trait. In an analysis of resting-state functional connectivity, Nielsen et al. (2013) found no evidence for the hypothesized global hemispheric-dominance organization across individuals. This finding addresses that global claim rather than denying known local specialization.
Brain hemisphere labels do not identify a person's learning needs or replace assessment of specific skills. The anatomy, functional lateralization, and limits of personality interpretations are examined in Left Brain vs. Right Brain: Hemispheres, Specialization, and Myths.
Myth 3: Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need matched instruction
People can prefer different ways of receiving information, and individual disabilities, prior experiences, and task demands have practical importance. The widely marketed “learning styles” hypothesis asserts something more specific: stable visual, auditory, or kinesthetic classifications allegedly predict that matching a teaching method to the classification creates superior learning outcomes.
A decisive study must identify learners' styles before instruction, randomly compare matched and mismatched approaches, and demonstrate a credible crossover interaction: the instructional format that benefits one classified group should systematically differ from the format that benefits another. Pashler et al. (2008) argued that the available evidence did not establish that basis for educational policy.
A subsequent 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 21 studies and identified a small mean advantage in matched conditions, but the required crossover interaction appeared in a minority of outcomes; study quality was generally low and heterogeneity substantial. The authors specifically cautioned against widespread implementation. The evidence therefore does not warrant assigning permanent learner identities and customizing all instruction by a simple visual–auditory–kinesthetic inventory.
Effective design can combine explanation, diagrams, demonstrations, retrieval practice, feedback, and hands-on activities according to the material and the learner's accessibility needs. A diagram helps explain spatial relationships because of the content being taught, not because its audience has been diagnosed with a “visual brain.”
Myth 4: The brain has separate reptilian, emotional, and rational layers
The triune-brain model, associated with Paul MacLean, arranged the brain into an ancient reptilian complex, an emotional mammalian limbic system, and a later rational neocortex. As a memorable historical model, it influenced popular accounts of stress, motivation, and therapy. As a literal description of evolutionary history and psychological control, it fails to capture the complexity of vertebrate brain development.
Comparative neuroanatomy reveals conserved components modified over evolutionary time, along with expanded and specialized circuitry. Structures do not simply accumulate as independent evolutionary personalities. Cortical and subcortical systems participate jointly in valuation, perception, bodily regulation, action selection, and goal-directed behavior. Emotion and cognition interact through reciprocal pathways, and emotional processing is not restricted to a single “limbic layer.” See Steffen, Hedges, and Matheson (2022) for a direct assessment of the model's scientific limitations.
“The reptile brain took over” may function as everyday shorthand for a rapid defensive response, but it cannot establish the actual neural mechanisms in an individual. An accurate explanation considers threat appraisal, learned contingencies, physiological state, context, and the coordinated participation of multiple systems.
Myth 5: Each emotion, memory, or personality trait has one brain address
Localization and specialization are legitimate scientific findings. Lesions affecting particular pathways can change language, memory, motor function, or perception in characteristic ways. Yet an everyday psychological category usually spans several elementary operations performed by distributed circuits, and one region can contribute to multiple cognitive or physiological processes.
Consider the amygdala: it participates in threat learning and responses to salient events, among other functions, so an amygdala signal alone cannot certify that someone is frightened. Likewise, the hippocampus participates centrally in episodic and contextual memory, while remembering recruits wider networks and stages of encoding, consolidation, and retrieval. Read our English overview Hippocampus: Memory, Context, and Spatial Processing.
The interpretation error known as reverse inference occurs when an investigator observes neural activation and infers that one particular psychological process must be taking place. The inference may carry information when the region is sufficiently selective, the experimental contrast is strong, and alternative processes have been evaluated. It is unreliable when a region participates in many tasks and the label is assigned solely from a colored image. Poldrack (2006) provided a foundational analysis of this logic. Converging lesion, behavioral, recording, perturbation, and computational evidence makes functional claims more credible.
Myth 6: Dopamine is pleasure; serotonin is happiness
Neurotransmitters are chemical signals whose consequences depend on receptor properties, synaptic location, circuit organization, timing, physiological state, and learning history. Dopamine participates in motor control, action selection, motivation, and learning from prediction-related signals; it cannot be reduced to a scalar measurement of pleasure or virtue. Modern work also examines informational roles beyond simple reward value, including Kahnt and Schoenbaum's 2025 review.
Serotonin affects numerous functions through different receptor types and circuits. A basic claim that depression results from insufficient serotonin in the brain does not capture the state of the evidence. An umbrella review of the serotonin theory of depression reported little consistent support for a straightforward deficiency explanation. This finding concerns one etiological hypothesis; it is not a test of whether a prescribed medication helps a particular patient.
Words like “dopamine detox,” “serotonin reset,” and “rebalancing chemicals” should be treated as metaphors or marketing claims unless a defined mechanism has been demonstrated with suitable measurements. A person's enjoyment, mood, or productivity does not directly reveal transmitter concentrations. For precise pathways and prediction signals, see Dopamine: Reward Prediction, Learning, Motivation, and Movement and Brain Reward System: Circuits, Reinforcement, and Motivation.
Myth 7: Brain-training apps broadly raise intelligence or prevent dementia
Practice produces learning, especially on the trained task and related exercises. The important question is how far the gain transfers. Near transfer means an improvement on tasks resembling the training. Far transfer concerns substantially different cognitive functions and meaningful activities such as employment, academic achievement, independent living, or clinical outcomes.
A large controlled study by Owen et al. (2010) reported practice-related gains without broad improvement on untrained cognitive measures. The comprehensive review by Simons and colleagues (2016) found evidence supporting specific and near-transfer benefits stronger than evidence for many generalized commercial promises. Studies vary in active controls, ages, training schedules, measures, and reporting practices, so the results of a particular well-controlled intervention deserve evaluation on their own terms.
Enjoying cognitive games, puzzles, or musical learning may be valuable. Whether a specific product prevents dementia, treats a disorder, or increases everyday intelligence is a different clinical or functional claim requiring longitudinal trials and relevant outcomes. A higher score inside the game does not establish reduced disease risk.
Myth 8: Neuroplasticity allows unlimited, effortless brain rewiring
Neuroplasticity describes changes in neural organization or function associated with learning, development, environment, injury, and other influences. Mechanisms may include modifications in synaptic efficacy, network connectivity, and patterns of recruitment, with different biological pathways depending on the system and experimental model. There is strong evidence that adult nervous systems can adapt. There is no general rule that any ability can be learned without constraints or that every injury can be fully reversed.
Learning trajectories depend on task specificity, developmental timing, baseline capacity, training conditions, tissue integrity, rehabilitation, and contextual support. Plasticity can be advantageous, neutral, or maladaptive depending on the outcome. Innocenti (2022) explains why the term must be defined more precisely than a popular “rewire your brain” slogan.
Evidence of functional reorganization is not automatically evidence of the creation of new neurons. Adult human neurogenesis is a distinct, methodologically difficult question; findings from some animal species cannot be transferred directly to the adult human brain. Likewise, observing a changed fMRI signal after a few sessions cannot establish a durable improvement in life functioning without corresponding behavioral evidence and follow-up.
Myth 9: fMRI images directly photograph thinking and emotion
Functional magnetic resonance imaging commonly measures the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal, an indirect hemodynamic correlate of aspects of neural activity. The familiar colored areas on a brain image usually represent statistical tests, contrasts between conditions, or model estimates. They are generated through acquisition and analysis choices, including preprocessing, motion correction, smoothing, statistical thresholds, and assumptions about the hemodynamic response.
Logothetis (2008) provides a methodological examination of what fMRI can and cannot reveal. Because an area can participate in more than one operation, the significance of a regional response depends on the task and available comparisons. The presence of activity is often compatible with several plausible psychological explanations; spatial localization is not equivalent to mind reading.
Research on fMRI statistical methods also documents the importance of analysis validity. Eklund, Nichols, and Knutsson (2016) found elevated false-positive rates under some then-common spatial cluster-inference procedures. Their finding concerns specific inferential practices and does not imply that all imaging experiments are unreliable. High-quality designs, transparent pipelines, independent samples, and convergence with other methods improve credibility.
Myth 10: Current brain scanners can read anyone's thoughts
Decoding is a real and rapidly developing research approach. Scientists train models to estimate selected stimulus, task, speech, or semantic properties from recorded signals and quantify performance on held-out data. The output depends on recording quality, training distribution, individual calibration, cooperation, and the precise task. Success at estimating one restricted variable is not evidence of unrestricted access to unspoken private intentions.
A landmark study by Tang et al. (2023) used extensive participant-specific fMRI training to reconstruct aspects of continuous language meaning. Reconstructed passages were approximate, and the procedure was dependent on the individual training situation and participant cooperation. The result demonstrates a meaningful research advance within carefully defined conditions.
Brain-computer interfaces may enable communication or device control for selected individuals, including those with severe motor impairments. Such clinical systems are assessed by communication speed, error rates, invasiveness, reliability, long-term usability, and safety. Neither the sophistication of an algorithm nor a sensational demonstration establishes universal silent thought extraction, deception detection, or consumer-grade mind reading.
Myth 11: Memories are perfect recordings stored in one place
Autobiographical memory is reconstructive. A memory report combines retained information with retrieval cues, schemas, later knowledge, emotional state, and interpretation. Some recollections are accurate in substantial detail, but vividness and subjective confidence do not independently certify an objective recording.
Neuroscience investigates encoding, consolidation, storage, reactivation, and retrieval in partly overlapping but distinguishable systems. The hippocampus is particularly important for some forms of episodic memory, while distributed cortical networks contribute content and long-term organization. Contemporary engram research uses recording and causal interventions in animals to study neuron ensembles associated with learned events; a 2024 review of memory engrams surveys the field. Experimental control of an animal's learned response should not be represented as a direct recreation of human autobiographical consciousness.
Evidence from laboratory recall, clinical observation, and neural studies therefore supports a model of dynamic and reconstructive remembering. It also explains why eyewitness or personal recollections require independent corroboration when factual precision matters.
Myth 12: The sleeping brain shuts down and cannot support learning
Sleep is a dynamic physiological condition with organized stages, characteristic electrical rhythms, changing chemical regulation, and continuing communication among neural networks. Numerous studies associate sleep with the consolidation and transformation of some previously learned information. This is compatible with altered conscious awareness during sleep; it does not require the brain to become inactive.
The review by Diekelmann and Born (2010) describes evidence for active reactivation and sleep-dependent memory processes. The benefits depend on the kind of memory, sleep stage, timing, and experimental conditions. Sleep-dependent consolidation differs from the claim that one can acquire unlimited complex new material simply by playing lessons overnight.
An EEG shift produced by a sleep technology does not demonstrate educational or clinical benefit unless an appropriately controlled study establishes a meaningful outcome. Sleep is a subject of specialized behavioral and physiological science, not proof of either total shutdown or effortless overnight mastery.
What MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, lesions, and stimulation actually establish
Structural MRI uses magnetic resonance signals to estimate properties of anatomy and tissue. It can identify many clinical abnormalities and characterize group or individual structure under appropriate protocols. A group difference in regional volume does not identify its cause and cannot routinely diagnose an individual psychological trait. Diffusion MRI models water-diffusion properties to infer aspects of fiber orientation and white-matter pathways; computational tractography is not direct microscopy of every axon.
Functional MRI estimates blood-oxygen-dependent signals related indirectly to neural activity and permits spatially informative comparisons. EEG records electrical potential differences at the scalp generated largely by coordinated neuronal populations, with millisecond-scale timing but limited spatial source identifiability. MEG measures magnetic fields generated by neural electrical currents and likewise requires assumptions to infer sources. PET measures the distribution of radiotracers and can quantify specific metabolic or molecular processes according to tracer chemistry and kinetic models; it is not a universal direct assay of “happiness chemicals.”
Lesion evidence can reveal whether damage involving a system disrupts a function, but lesions often cross anatomical boundaries, trigger compensation, and affect connected networks. Brain stimulation can alter activity and sometimes behavior or symptoms; interpretation depends on targeting, current spread, dose, sham controls, patient population, and clinical endpoints. Animal optical and electrical perturbation studies can support precise causal mechanisms under laboratory conditions but do not by themselves establish corresponding human subjective experiences.
The goal of triangulation is to use measurements with different limitations to test a sufficiently specific mechanistic hypothesis. Our published Brain Imaging Methods: What MRI, fMRI, PET, and EEG Measure offers a detailed comparison.
Why neuromyths persist in education, media, and consumer products
Brain images and neurochemical explanations have intuitive appeal because they appear tangible. A clean illustration offers a simple cause for an otherwise complex psychological phenomenon; a named hemisphere or molecule offers an easy personal identity. Commercial messaging can then convert the story into a product promise, such as activating unused brain capacity, tailoring education to a “brain type,” or repairing brain chemistry through a shortcut.
Scientific communication contributes when it conflates association with causation, describes a single study as consensus, ignores negative results, or substitutes a familiar mental label for an operationalized measure. A result shown in one species, age group, disorder, or short laboratory task may not extend to another. Accurate interpretation requires stating the population, method, effect size, uncertainty, alternative explanations, and outcome domain.
Neuromyth correction works best when a useful replacement explanation is supplied. Saying that the left/right personality dichotomy is unsupported becomes more educationally valuable when followed by an account of real hemispheric specialization and cooperation. The review of educator interventions by Rousseau and colleagues provides a useful evidence base for this corrective approach.
How to assess a new brain-science headline
Start with the primary peer-reviewed paper or a systematic review. Ask what participants actually did and what researchers actually measured. A blood-flow signal, electrical oscillation, self-reported feeling, observed behavior, molecular tracer, and mathematical model represent different forms of evidence. Translate the headline back into the original operational definition before accepting its psychological description.
Determine whether the design establishes an association, predicts an outcome, or manipulates a plausible mechanism. Causal language requires suitable experimental identification and attention to confounding. Consider sample size, preregistration, multiple comparisons, effect sizes, confidence intervals, analytic flexibility, publication bias, independent replication, and how strongly competing models were tested.
Then examine practical transfer. Were claims about learning based on improvements in an untrained task or only a repeated exercise? Were clinical claims validated in real patients using accepted diagnostic or therapeutic endpoints? Does a laboratory classifier work in the intended population with acceptable false positives and false negatives? Has the effect persisted long enough to matter?
If the headline promises “rewiring,” identify which feature changed, how it was measured, and whether change was beneficial. If it promises “mind reading,” ask what was decoded, how the model was trained, and whether it worked across people without specialized calibration. If it promises a neurotransmitter “reset,” ask for a defined biochemical mechanism rather than metaphorical language.
Clinical interpretation: biomarkers, diagnosis, and treatment
Investigational neural markers can reveal meaningful group associations without supplying validated individual clinical tests. An image pattern correlated with symptoms in a research cohort cannot automatically diagnose depression, ADHD, autism, or another condition. Clinical utility requires external validation, appropriate clinical populations and comparisons, calibrated decision thresholds, reproducibility, and evidence that using the test improves patient care.
The same principle governs treatment claims. A change in an EEG band or fMRI activation is a potential intermediate outcome, whereas symptom improvement, functioning, quality of life, durability, and adverse effects are distinct endpoints. Neurostimulation, medications, psychotherapy, cognitive rehabilitation, and digital interventions require intervention-specific evidence rather than a generalized assumption that altering a neural signal guarantees recovery.
Questions about an individual's symptoms or treatment should be discussed with appropriately qualified professionals. Prescribed medications should not be changed on the basis of popular neurotransmitter explanations, nor should consumer “brain scans” be substituted for established clinical evaluation.
Frequently asked questions
Is the 10-percent myth false even during rest?
Yes. Rest is an experimental condition, not a state in which most brain tissue is unused. Resting networks, background activity, and ongoing physiological regulation persist; the precise activity pattern changes with state and task.
Are hemisphere differences entirely fictional?
No. Lateralization is real and often function-specific. The unsupported claim is that everyone has a globally dominant creative or analytical hemisphere that determines personality or optimal teaching format.
Can brain-training games help older adults?
Some targeted exercises can improve trained or closely related performance. The breadth, durability, real-world impact, and clinical usefulness vary by program and population. Dementia-prevention claims need separate rigorous evidence.
Does neuroplasticity end after childhood?
Adult plasticity is well established. Its mechanisms and scope are shaped by developmental history, experience, biology, and training conditions. Adaptive change should be evaluated by the specific function and outcome.
Can fMRI tell whether someone is afraid or lying?
A regional fMRI response may contribute evidence within a tightly defined experiment; it is not a general-purpose readout of subjective fear or deception. External validity, alternative psychological processes, and classification error are decisive concerns.
Can an MRI diagnose a mental disorder?
MRI has important medical diagnostic applications, particularly for structural and neurological conditions. A research association between group-level imaging measures and psychiatric labels is not automatically an approved or accurate individual psychiatric diagnostic test.
Is dopamine really related to reward?
Yes, in multiple pathways and computational roles. Dopamine signaling can carry learning-related prediction information and influence motivation and behavior. The relationship is richer than equating dopamine with subjective pleasure.
Does the triune-brain story have any scientific value?
It has historical importance and can illustrate how explanatory metaphors spread. Its literal account of three evolutionarily independent brain layers and a conflict between an “emotional” subcortex and a “rational” cortex is scientifically inadequate.
Is neural decoding the same as reading private thoughts?
No. Decoding models infer limited variables from recorded data under experimental and computational constraints. Demonstrations using calibrated participants do not establish unrestricted access to mental content.
Should neuroscientific evidence change how people learn?
Yes, when a validated finding informs a practical intervention with meaningful outcomes. Scientific literacy, sleep, attention, practice, feedback, accessibility, and evidence-based instruction can benefit from neuroscience while remaining subject to behavioral and educational evaluation.
Conclusion
Neuroscience is strongest when each claim stays close to its measurements and methods. The brain is active across changing states, hemispheres both specialize and cooperate, emotion and cognition arise through connected systems, learning changes neural function under real constraints, and modern imaging and decoding methods produce valuable but bounded inferences. The reliable alternative to neuromyths is a precise account of mechanisms, uncertainty, experimental context, and practical evidence.
Related Articles
References
Choucry, A., Nomoto, M., & Inokuchi, K. (2024). Engram mechanisms of memory linking and identity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 25, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00814-0
Clinton-Lisell, V., & Litzinger, C. (2024). Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1428732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1428732
Diekelmann, S., & Born, J. (2010). The memory function of sleep. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2762
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 7900–7905. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602413113
Innocenti, G. M. (2022). Defining neuroplasticity. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 184, 3–18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35034744/
Kahnt, T., & Schoenbaum, G. (2025). The curious case of dopaminergic prediction errors and learning associative information beyond value. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 26, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00898-8
Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06976
Moncrieff, J., et al. (2022). The serotonin theory of depression: A systematic umbrella review of the evidence. Molecular Psychiatry. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10618090/
Nature Neuroscience. (2003). Brain myths. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0203-99
Nielsen, J. A., et al. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PLOS ONE, 8, e71275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275
Owen, A. M., et al. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09042
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004
Rousseau, L., et al. (2024). Dispelling educational neuromyths: Review of teacher professional development interventions. Mind, Brain, and Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12414
Simons, D. J., et al. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 103–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
Steffen, P. R., Hedges, D., & Matheson, R. (2022). The brain is adaptive not triune. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 802606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.802606
Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S., & Huth, A. G. (2023). Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. Nature Neuroscience, 26, 858–866. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01304-9