Motor Therapy Training Linked to More Neuromyth Beliefs Among Hungarian Teachers

Teachers are often the first professionals to notice when a child’s motor development seems off track, and parents frequently turn to them for advice about movement-based therapies. But what happens when the teachers themselves hold misconceptions about how children learn to move and coordinate? A new study from Hungary suggests the answer is troubling: misconceptions about motor development are widespread among the country’s in-service teachers, and, remarkably, those who completed motor therapy training endorsed more of these false beliefs, not fewer.

The research, published in Frontiers in Education, examined what scientists call neuromyths—misconceptions generated by misunderstanding, misreading, or oversimplifying findings from neuroscience. Neuromyths have been studied extensively in relation to learning styles and hemispheric dominance, but misconceptions specifically about motor development and coordination have remained largely unexplored. This gap matters because movement-based developmental programs, often marketed as motor therapies, have expanded substantially in Hungary over the past two decades, with many teachers and special education professionals completing certificate courses in methods such as Brain Gym, sensory integration therapy, and various sensorimotor training approaches.

A research team led by Katalin Kälbli and Tamás Csányi, drawing on institutions including Eötvös Loránd University and the Hungarian University of Sports Science, conducted a cross-sectional online survey in February and March 2022. Invitations were distributed through the email lists of professional teachers’ associations and the two largest Hungarian social media groups for teachers, reaching participants from every region of the country. After data cleaning, the final sample comprised 734 in-service teachers with a mean age of 48.1 years. Most were women (92.5 percent), and 60.6 percent were special education or conductive education teachers. Notably, 206 participants—28.1 percent of the sample—reported having completed training in at least one motor therapy approach, most commonly Complex Motor Therapy, Basic Motor Development Therapy, Planned Sensorimotor Training, Dynamic Sensory Integration Therapy, or the INPP method.

Participants completed the Hungarian Neuroliteracy Questionnaire, a 44-item instrument containing statements about brain function, learning, and development. The current analysis focused on 13 statements addressing motor development and coordination. Three were adapted from an established international questionnaire, while ten were newly developed by the research team based on claims frequently encountered in Hungarian-language promotional materials for motor therapy programs. Eleven of the 13 statements were scientifically inaccurate, and two were accurate. Respondents rated their agreement on a four-point Likert scale, with an additional option to indicate they did not know. For analysis, agreement and disagreement responses were collapsed into two categories and coded according to the scientific accuracy of each statement.

The results were striking. Incorrect response rates across the 13 statements ranged from 7.6 percent to 95.8 percent, and the mean incorrect response rate for the full sample was 73.1 percent—meaning that, on average, teachers answered roughly three out of every four statements incorrectly. Eleven of the 13 statements were answered incorrectly by more than 60 percent of participants. The most prevalent misconception was the claim that exercises rehearsing coordination of motor-perception skills can improve literacy skills, endorsed incorrectly by 95.8 percent of the total sample. Three of the four most prevalent misconceptions concerned hemispheric integration—the idea that coordination exercises can permanently improve communication between the brain’s two hemispheres—with incorrect response rates between 91.3 and 95.8 percent. Among teachers who had completed motor therapy training, 98.1 percent incorrectly endorsed the claim that effective communication between the cerebral hemispheres can be permanently improved through appropriate motor coordination exercises, compared with 94.5 percent of those without such training.

The comparison between trained and untrained teachers produced the study’s most consequential finding. Teachers who had completed motor therapy training showed a higher mean incorrect response rate than those who had not (77.9 percent versus 71.2 percent) and a lower rate of uncertainty, choosing the I-don’t-know option only 3.6 percent of the time compared with 10.3 percent for untrained teachers. Trained teachers showed higher incorrect-response rates on 11 of the 13 statements, with statistically significant differences on several items, including claims about crawling patterns, cross-lateral movements, and language disorders being underpinned by delayed motor development. In an ordinal logistic regression controlling for gender, age, degree type, and information sources, completion of motor therapy training remained independently associated with higher odds of belonging to a higher incorrect-response category (OR = 1.672, 95 percent CI [1.177, 2.374], p = 0.004). The pattern of lower uncertainty alongside higher error rates is consistent with previous research showing that teachers who endorse neuromyths tend to feel confident in their false beliefs—a combination that may facilitate the spread of misconceptions into classroom practice and parental advice.

The analysis also identified factors linked to information consumption. More frequent use of pedagogical journals and textbooks was associated with higher incorrect response rates, whereas more frequent use of neuropedagogical methods in professional practice and of English-language peer-reviewed journals was associated with lower incorrect response rates (OR = 0.618, 95 percent CI [0.505, 0.757], p < 0.001). This last finding is particularly revealing: 90.9 percent of teachers reported never or rarely reading scientific articles in English, and only 3.4 percent used such resources frequently or regularly. The authors suggest that limited engagement with international academic literature may have constrained the incorporation of contemporary theories of motor development—which emphasize dynamic, context-dependent processes rather than the strictly linear, hierarchical progression assumed by the neuromaturational theory underpinning many motor therapies—into teachers’ professional knowledge. Female gender was also associated with higher incorrect-response odds, though the authors caution this result is exploratory given that 92.5 percent of the sample were women.

The study’s implications extend beyond Hungary. Teachers play a key role in identifying atypical developmental trajectories and guiding parents toward interventions, and educators who endorse movement-related neuromyths may recommend unproven therapies—sometimes even for cognitive or speech development—during sensitive periods of development. Implementing interventions whose effectiveness has not been established may divert time and resources from evidence-based practices and impose financial burdens on families. The authors propose that teacher education explicitly address movement-related neuromyths, present contemporary theories of motor development, and develop critical appraisal skills, noting that previous research shows general neuroscience education decreases but does not eliminate neuromyth beliefs. They also recommend disseminating high-quality scientific information through accessible platforms, including the social media channels teachers already use, to close the communication gap between researchers and practitioners.

As the first study to assess the prevalence of neuromyths specifically related to motor development and coordination, the research extends the international literature on educational misconceptions and highlights a counterintuitive pattern: specialized training in movement-based therapies was associated with greater, rather than lower, endorsement of movement-related misconceptions. Because the study was cross-sectional, the associations cannot be interpreted as causal, and the authors call for longitudinal and intervention-based research examining whether targeted training can produce sustained changes in teachers’ beliefs. Future studies should also consider the content, duration, accreditation status, and scientific foundations of motor therapy training courses, which may help explain the association observed. For now, the message for educators and parents alike is clear: when it comes to claims about movement, coordination, and the brain, confidence is no substitute for evidence.

Subject of Research: Neuroscience

Article Title: Neuromyths about motor development and coordination among Hungarian teachers: prevalence and associations with completion of motor therapy training

Article References: Kälbli, K., Vig, J., Kaj, M., Kas, B., Berki, T., Tóth, L., & Csányi, T. (2026). Neuromyths about motor development and coordination among Hungarian teachers: prevalence and associations with completion of motor therapy training. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1971180. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1971180

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1971180

Keywords: neuromyths, motor development, teacher education, educational neuroscience, motor therapy, Hungary, motor, development, coordination, Hungarian, teachers, prevalence