Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain believed by both the general public and educators. While much research has investigated the prevalence of myths about the typically developing brain, less attention has been devoted to the pervasiveness of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders, which have the potential to exacerbate stigma. This preregistered study investigated to what extent neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders (namely dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and syndrome) are endorsed by two groups: the general public and those working in education. In an online survey, 366 members of the general public and 203 individuals working in education rated similar numbers of myths to be true, but more about neurodevelopmental disorders than general neuromyths. As the frequency of access to brain information emerged as a protective factor against endorsing myths in both populations, we argue that this problem may be addressed via provision of neuroeducational resources.

In neuroimaging, spatial normalization is an important step that maps an individual's brain onto a template brain permitting downstream statistical analyses. Yet, in infant neuroimaging, there remain several technical challenges that have prevented the establishment of a standardized template for spatial normalization. Thus, many different approaches are used in the literature. To quantify the popularity and variability of these approaches in infant neuroimaging studies, we performed a systematic review of infant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies from 2000 to 2020. Here, we present results from 834 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were classified into (a) processing data in single subject space, (b) using an off the shelf, or "off the shelf," template, (c) creating a study specific template, or (d) using a hybrid of these methods. We found that across the studies in the systematic review, single subject space was the most used (no common space). This was the most used common space for diffusion-weighted imaging and structural MRI studies while functional MRI studies preferred off the shelf atlases. We found a pattern such that more recently published studies are more commonly using off the shelf atlases. When considering special populations, preterm studies most used single subject space while, when no special populations were being analyzed, an off the shelf template was most common. The most used off the shelf templates were the UNC Infant Atlases (24%).Using a systematic review of infant neuroimaging studies, we highlight a lack of an established "standard" template brain in these studies.

In neuroimaging, spatial normalization is an important step that maps an individuals brain onto a template brain permitting downstream statistical analyses. Yet, in infant neuroimaging, there remain several technical challenges that have prevented the establishment of a standardized template for spatial normalization. Thus, many different approaches are used in the literature. To quantify the popularity and variability of these approaches in infant neuroimaging studies, we performed a systematic review of infant MRI studies from 2000 to 2020. Here, we present results from 833 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were classified into 1) processing data in single subject space, 2) using a predefined, or off the shelf, template, 3) creating a study specific template or 4) using a hybrid of these methods. We found that across the studies in the systematic review, single subject space was the most used (no common space). This was the most used common space for DWI and structural MRI studies while fMRI studies preferred off the shelf atlases. We found a pattern such that more recently published studies are more commonly using off the shelf atlases. When considering special populations, preterm studies most used single subject space while, when no special populations were being analyzed, an off the shelf template was most common. The most used off the shelf templates were the UNC Infant Atlases (26.1 percent). Using a systematic review of infant neuroimaging studies, we highlight a lack of an established standard template brain in these studies.