Skip to main content

Neuromyths

The study of the brain and behaviour has been a source of deep fascination and contemplation for centuries (Palanica, 2024). In 1669, Danish scientist Nicolaus Steno proclaimed that “The brain, the masterpiece of creation, is almost unknown to us.” This statement still resonates centuries later. Whilst technological advancements over the past fifty to sixty years have significantly transformed the fields of neuroscience, neuropsychology, and neuropsychiatry, there remains much to explore regarding the brain’s complexities (Hu, 2022). A recent lecture by trauma expert, Bessel van der Kolk, illustrated perfectly how limited our knowledge of the brain might be using the evolving image and knowledge we have of Mars as advances in technology continue to enable closer and closer inspection of this planet. As Hu said in her 2022 article, “Believing that neuroscience reveals all is a trap many people fall into…the takeaways from neuroscience are rarely ironclad”.

 

Neuroscience research, bolstered by innovative brain imaging techniques such as fMRI, has illuminated various aspects of how the brain functions (Hu, 2022). This progress not only enhances scientific understanding but has also made neuroscience more accessible and appealing (or ‘cool’) to the public (Hu, 2022; Palanica, 2024). It is important to note that the interpretation of neuroimaging is not completely objective and no universal consensus exists on how these images should be interpreted (Hu, 2022). Regardless of these controversies, a thriving market has emerged for books and resources that claim to reveal the mysteries of the human brain, thereby empowering individuals with knowledge about their own minds. Unfortunately, translating this knowledge into practice commonly results in errors, misconceptions, false beliefs, or even blatant misinformation. The field of education has not been spared from some of these neuromyths—or errors and false beliefs—about the brain and its workings. This article will explore some of the most common neuromyths that have been particularly deleterious to the praxis of educators and various other fields.

 

Neuromyth #1: We Use Only 10% of Our Brains

This commonly repeated statement has been disproven by numerous neuroimaging studies that show that we actually use close to 100% of our brains! We might not be using 100% of our brains for every single task but most cognitive tasks or behaviours involve multiple interconnected brain areas working in tandem with one another (Hagmann et al., 2008; Palanica, 2024; Westlin et al., 2022). Even whilst performing the most basic tasks like resting with our eyes closed, we use more than 10% of our brains (Palanica, 2024)! In other words, most cognitive tasks or behaviours are whole-brain events (Hagmann et al., 2008; Westlin et al., 2022). This supports the notion that our brains are complex organs or systems that contain a multitude of connections between and within the different brain areas (Hagmann et al., 2008; Westlin et al., 2022).

 

Neuromyth #2: People are either Right-Brain or Left-Brain Dominant

No scientific evidence supports the belief that right-brain dominant individuals are more creative, spontaneous and less rational than left-brain dominant individuals, who are said to be logical and analytical (Nielsen et al., 2013; Palanica, 2024). As already explained in the first neuromyth, the brain is a complex system that contains many different, interconnected areas that work together as a holistic whole (Hagmann et al., 2008; Palanica, 2024).  This means that both brain halves or hemispheres interact to perform cognitive tasks or behaviours. The brain is unique, and information is transferred between the hemispheres through nerve fibres known as the corpus callosum. Both hemispheres are used in an integrated manner. For instance, neuroimaging studies have shown that creativity is the product of both hemispheres. The right hemisphere does indeed connect with the surrounding visual images, but it is the left hemisphere that allows those images to be named, and therein lies the mutual work between both hemispheres. Simply put, neither brain hemisphere is dominant over the other (Nielsen et al., 2013; Palanica, 2024).

Classroom education has traditionally placed greater importance on the actions performed by the left hemisphere, such as mathematical ability, speech and logical thinking, although the actions performed by the right hemisphere are equally necessary for the information to form a whole. Hence, IQ diagnostic tests usually reduce intelligence to logical-mathematical and linguistic components. This traditional emphasis on abstract, logical thinking and tasks ignores the importance of attending to the integrative or holistic development of the human mind. This frequently stymies the development of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking—skills that are becoming increasingly critical in the rapidly changing workplace.

Neuromyth #3: Everyone Has a Unique Learning Style

This neuromyth refers to the notion that everyone has a specific learning style like being a visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learner. Although a widely accepted notion, there is no strong evidence in the literature to support it (An & Carr, 2017; Palanica, 2024; Rohrer & Pascal, 2012). This erroneous belief has resulted in the proliferation of learning style assessments (that are very often incredibly costly and without much validity and reliability) and specific programmes based on the need to teach children selectively, according to their supposed learning styles (An & Carr, 2017; Rohrer & Pashler, 2012). No strong scientific evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of tailoring instruction to an individual’s learning style (An & Carr, 2017; Rohrer & Pashler, 2012). Educators must understand that learners differ in their abilities to understand and master content as well as in their visual and verbal abilities (An & Carr, 2017). Furthermore, differences in self-regulation, sensory-based representations, levels of expertise, temperament and personality offer a much better explanation for different learning outcomes than so-called learning styles (An & Carr, 2017). Subsequently,  educators should rather “focus on developing the most effective and coherent ways to present particular bodies of content, which often involve combining different forms of instruction, such as diagrams and words, in mutually reinforcing ways” (as cited in Rohrer & Pashler, 2012, p 46). Most people learn best through the combination of “multiple sensory representations of information”  (Palanica, 2024).

 

Neuromyth #4: Male Brains and  Female Brains Differ Tremendously

The age-old conundrum of whether male and female brains differ dates back to Aristotle (384-322 BC) (Eliot et al., 2021). Although clear behavioural differences between males and females might lead one to believe that these differences must be underpinned by differences in male and female brains, current research does not support the notion of universal sex-related differences between male and female brains (Eliot et al., 2021; Palanica, 2024). Lise Eliot and colleagues conducted a meta-synthesis of 3 decades of human brain sex difference findings based on MRI and post-mortem findings and what they discovered is that few sex-related differences exist when the data are corrected for brain size (the main difference between male and female brains). Of these differences, sex only accounted for 1% of the variance in brain structure or laterality and overall, brains are similar in function and structure regardless of the sex of the brain owner (Eliot et al., 2021; Nielsen et al., 2013). The belief that male brains are more rational, while female brains are more emotional, is a contentious subject that needs to be approached with the rigour it requires since it underlies a multitude of problems. This misconception also belies the fact that behaviour is underpinned by various factors like societal expectations and norms.

 

Neuromyth #5: Missing Critical Periods for Learning  Permanently Close the Window of Opportunity for Learning Certain Skills

Although it has been demonstrated that humans are particularly sensitive to learning at certain periods, this does not imply that they cannot continue learning throughout their lifespan. There are periods in early childhood and adolescence during which plasticity is optimal and brain development is particularly open to certain experiences which will not reoccur (critical period) or during which certain skills or characteristics can most easily be acquired (sensitive period) (American Psychological Association [APA], 2018a, 2018c; Beaumont, 2008; Stiles et al., 2002). The brain is a dynamic structure with a natural ability to learn, adapt to its environment and compensate in response to injuries (Hylin et al., 2017; Kolb & Whishaw, 2021; Loman et al., 2021). Neuroplasticity refers to the capacity of the brain to learn new behaviours in the normal brain or relearn lost behaviours following damage via the ability of neurons and other brain cells to form new connections and change their structure and function in response to experiences or environmental stimuli (APA, 2018b; Kleim & Jones, 2008; Kolb & Teskey, 2010).

It was previously believed that adults have minimal neuroplasticity but this is untrue, human brains possess lifelong neuroplasticity (Eliot et al., 2021; Neville & Bavelier, 2002; Voss et al., 2017). Neuroplasticity varies between different brain areas and three distinct patterns of brain plasticity are identifiable: (a) modifiable by experience throughout life; (b) ability to undergo considerable change in response to experience but only during certain time-limited, sensitive developmental periods which vary from system to system; and (c) highly rigid with minimal change in response to experience (Kolb & Gibb, 2002; Leisman et al., 2021; Neville & Bavelier, 2002). The crux here is that “it is not worth having an argument as to whether the brain is plastic or not: it is both. It is more important to study the conditions under which each system is stable or plastic” (Wandell & Smirnakis, 2009, as cited in Leisman et al., 2021, p. 3).

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2018a). Critical Period. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/critical-period

American Psychological Association (2018b). Neural Plasticity. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/neural-plasticity

American Psychological Association (2018c). Sensitive Period. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/sensitive-period

An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: Recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050

Beaumont, J. G. (2008). Introduction to neuropsychology. Guilford Press

Eliot, L., Ahmed, A., Khan, H., & Patel, J. (2021). Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 667-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.026

Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., Honey, C. J., Wedeen, V. J., & Sporns, O. (2008). Mapping the structural core of human cerebral cortex. PLoS biology6(7), e159. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060159

Hu, J. C. (2022, November 27). The Myth of the 25-Year-Old Brain. Retrieved October 11, 2024, from https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html

Hylin, M. J., Kerr, A. L., & Holden, R. (2017). Understanding the mechanisms of recovery and/or compensation following injury. Neural plasticity2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7125057

Kleim, J. A., & Jones, T. A. (2008). Principles of Experience-Dependent Neural Plasticity: Implications for Rehabilitation After Brain Damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research51, S225-S239. https://doi.org/10924388005100010000

Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2002). Frontal Lobe Plasticity and Behavior. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 528–540). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0032

Kolb, B., & Teskey, G. C. (2012). Age, experience, injury, and the changing brain. Developmental psychobiology54(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20515

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2021). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology. Worth Publishers.

Leisman, G., Machado, C., & Melillo, R. (2021). Cortical Visual Impairment in Childhood: ‘Blindsight’ and the Sprague Effect Revisited. Brain Sciences, 11(10), 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101279

Loman, M., Vogt, E., Miller, L., Landsman, R., Duong, P., Kasten, J., DeFrancisco, D., Koop, J., & Heffelfinger, A. (2021). “How to” operate a pediatric neuropsychology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: Real tips from one practice’s experience. Child Neuropsychology27(2), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2020.1830962

Neville, H., & Bavelier, D. (2001). Human brain plasticity: Evidence from sensory deprivation and altered language experience. Progress in Brain Research, 138, 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(02)38078-6

Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PloS one8(8), e71275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275

Palanica, A. (2024, May 15). 25 Neuroscience Myths. Retrieved October 11, 2024, from https://medium.com/behavior-design-hub/25-neuroscience-myths-1bc09dcf9c88

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46(7), 634-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x

Stiles, J., Bates, E. A., Thal, D., Trauner, D. A., & Reilly, J. (2002). Linguistic and spatial cognitive development in children with pre- and perinatal focal brain injury: A ten-year overview from the San Diego longitudinal project. In M. H. Johnson, Y. Munakata, & R. O. Gilmore (Eds.), Brain development and cognition: A reader (pp. 272–291). Blackwell Publishing.

Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., & Miguel, J. (2017). Dynamic Brains and the Changing Rules of Neuroplasticity: Implications for Learning and Recovery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 274878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01657

Westlin, C., Theriault, J. E., Katsumi, Y., Nieto-Castanon, A., Kucyi, A., Ruf, S. F., … & Barrett, L. F. (2023). Improving the study of brain-behavior relationships by revisiting basic assumptions. Trends in cognitive sciences27(3), 246-257. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(22)00332-1

 

 

Written by Candice Lambert (Neuroscience counsellor) and Jandi Newall (Medical Doctor and Researcher)

Leave a Reply