In recent years, the knowledge and findings from neurosciences have been spread across the scientific field, reaching public discussion [1]. Educators have seen those findings as an opportunity to bring new ideas to the classroom and as a background to justify their teaching practices [2]. Despite the great interest in the field, neuroscience is complex and diverse, with ongoing developments and areas of limited understanding. This complexity can lead to misinterpretations and the emergence of neuromyths [3,4].

Neuromyths refer to false beliefs regarding neuroscientific knowledge, despite being refuted in their field [1]. Neuromyths are often hard to dispel as they often link to intuitive thoughts and experiences [5] and linger on the social imaginary. In the educational field, researchers have reported that in-service teachers (teachers from now on), pre-service teachers (students enrolled in an undergraduate degree to become school teachers), and parents widely accept erroneous beliefs about learning and brain function (Torrijos-Muelas et al., [6]. Studies that have looked for possible factors that predict belief in neuromyths have shown that informal information about the brain increases their prevalence (Dekker et al., [7]; Hughes et al., [8]) but that access to scientific knowledge about the brain ([9]; Howard-Jones et al., [10]), and solid educational qualifications (Hughes et al., [8]) would act as a protective factor. Despite this, it has been reported that access to formal knowledge about neuroscience alone is not enough to reduce belief in neuromyths (Howard‐Jones et al., [11]; Im et al., [[5], [12], [13]]).

If not contrasted, false beliefs about how the brain works may influence the decisions and design of pedagogical strategies [14]. Lilienfeld [15] reported that didactic techniques based on neuromyths have caused detriment to students and may put learning methodologies at risk. Ruhaak and Cook [16] studied the endorsement of neuromyths in pre-service teachers. They found that those students who identified the neuromyths were less likely to implement them in their practices, whilst those who endorsed neuromyths were more likely to organise their instructions based on ineffective methodologies, lack of evidence-based, and an incorrect arrangement of time in the class. However, it has been suggested that the relationship between the endorsement of neuromyths by educators and their teaching practices is unclear. Horvath et al. [17] compared neuromyths rates between award-winning teachers and non-award-winning teachers and their results showed no differences in the prevalence of neuromyths endorsement among them. In addition, Krammer et al. [18] observed that the neuromyth acceptance rates in pre-service teachers were marginally associated with their own grades as students.

The neuromyths of typical brain development is a recent phenomenon that has received significant attention and concern in the scientific field with multiple publications (see the revision of Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021). On the contrary, there is scarce research on false beliefs about neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) are characterised as conditions manifested in the early development period that may affect a person in different areas, such as personal, social, academic or occupational life (American Psychiatric Association [APA], [19]). The NDDs include intellectual disabilities, communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorder (SpLD), and motor disorders. The present study examined neuromyths related to ADHD, SpLD, ASD and Down syndrome.

According to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), ADHD presents a persistent pattern of inattention, hyperactive and impulsive behaviour that interferes with daily life activities. SpLD refers to learning and academic skills difficulties that may be expressed in the reading, writing (known as dyslexia) and maths domains (known as dyscalculia). ASD refers to social communication and social interaction difficulties, such as social-emotional reciprocity, nonverbal communication, and relationships. Intellectual disability is characterised by a deficit in intellectual functioning (e.g. reasoning, problem-solving, planning), and in the adaptive domain that impacts personal independence and social responsibility (APA, [19]). In some cases, intellectual disability may be associated with Down syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality affecting cognitive skills and muscular development (World Health Organization, [20]).

Gini et al. [21] explored the prevalence of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders compared to general neuromyths in both educators and the general population in the UK. They found that for all participants, the knowledge of developmental conditions was lower than general neuroscience topics, showing a lack of knowledge about neurodevelopmental disorders. Another study (Papadatou-Pastou et al., [22]) explored general neuromyths and those related to special education among pre-service teachers. The results indicated that pre-service teachers were more likely to make errors on the special education-related items (e.g. “The defining feature of dyslexia is reversing letters”), compared to the general neuroscience-related items, with a difference of 15.8%. Wrong ideas about neuroscience can lead to stigma and prejudice about neurological conditions [23]. For example, by lowering expectations and constraining opportunities for participation in people with disabilities [24]. The prejudice against neurodevelopmental disorders impacts the person with a diagnosis and their families, as reported by Serchuk et al. [25], who observed mental health issues and low quality of life associated with stigma in parents of children with NDDs; thus, investigating the prevalence of misconceptions on these topics may help tackle discrimination.

Endorsement of neuromyths has shown to be present across countries, including Chile (Biso Ávila et al., [26,27]; Gleichgerrcht et al., [28,29]; Painemil et al., [[4], [30]]). Among the most studied neuromyths (for a revision of the original questionnaire, see Dekker et al., [7]), there are four that have shown to be most endorsed by Chilean teachers: the learning style model (auditory, visual, kinesthetic); the hemispheric dominance as individual differences; the idea that coordination exercises improve literacy skills; and the belief that environments rich in stimulus improve the brain of preschool children (Gleichgerrcht et al., [28]; Painemil et al., [[4], [30]]).

Since 2009, Chile has significantly increased the funding and human resources for attention to student diversity as a consequence of legal dispositions (República [31]). Implementing such measures has challenged educators, who must work together as an interdisciplinary team and with the educative community (MINEDUC, [32]). Nevertheless, there are worldwide stigma and misinformation about the needs and characteristics of students with neurodevelopmental conditions, as has been reported for children with autism spectrum and intellectual disability (Chávez Gonzales et al., [[23], [33]]; Gurdián-Fernández et al., [34]). As such, in addition to examining inclusion practices, it is imporant to examine any misconcepts or beliefs related to neurodevelopmental disorders that may hinder or impact on inclusion practices. Although there is currently no research that has examined the relationship between what teachers believe about neurodevelopmental disorders and solutions or interventions they apply in the classroom, there is evidence that neuromyths influence policymakers to invest public resources, rolling out interventions based on neuromyths such as learning styles (visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic) or the Mozart Effect, playing classical music to babies to improve IQ [5]. Evidence from our unpublished focus groups suggests that teachers often use visual overlays to help students with dyslexia based on the belief that all students with dyslexia have reading problems caused by visual stress. In addition, endorsement of incorrect facts about neurodevelopmental disorders can increase stigma and reduce access to diagnosis as well as intervention therapies.

In the current study, we examined the prevalence of general neuromyths about the brain and neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders in a sample of Chilean teachers, undergraduate students and professionals who work on education. Despite national legal provisions for special education requiring qualified professionals, no prior studies have examined the prevalence of misconceptions about neurodevelopmental disorders among Chilean educators, and there are no previous studies assessing neuromyths in dyscalculia. Hence, this study is distinguished by its specific focus on neuromyths related to neurodevelopmental disorders, its emphasis on the distinction between general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths to examine if neuromyths related to neurodevelopmental disorders are a specific issue, and the comparison between different groups of neurodevelopmental disorders to examine if neuromyths are a specific issue for certain neurodevelopmental disorders only. Based on the literature reviewed, we expected an extensive endorsement of general neuromyths, especially for the four most popular ones. We also predicted higher endorsement for the neurodevelopmental neuromyths than the general ones. Finally, we predicted that for neurodevelopmental disorders that teachers and non-teachers were least familiar with, they would endorse most neuromyths related to that NDD, such as dyscalculia.