The prevalence of neuromyths among teachers has been studied around the world over the last few decades, and unfortunately, the message of all these studies is the same - neuromyths are widespread among teachers and educators. Neuromyths result from misinterpreted or simplistic interpretations of neuroscience research, which seeks to transfer to areas of application such as teaching, learning and instruction, which has led to the emergence of a wealth of pseudoscientific knowledge (OECD, 2002). A systematic analysis of the literature on neuromyths by Torrijos-Muelas and colleagues (2021) shows that the most common myth in education around the world is that individuals learn better when their learning style preferences, i.e. visual, auditory or kinesthetic, are taken into account. In 91,3% of the studies, it has been identified as one of the most common neuromyths. More than half of the surveys (58,3%) also describe teachers' unwavering belief in the myth of the first three years of life being the most critical for development. The last of the three most common neuromyths, cited in 41,7% of the studies analysed, is related to the belief that differences in brain hemispheres (left vs right) explain individual differences in learning. The international popularity of many neuromyths suggests their existence on a global dimension. Being frequently based on habitual inferences and perceptions, neuromyths are not easily refuted by any single exposure to correct information (Chi, 2013; Lassonde, Kendeou, & O'Brien, 2016; Verkade et al., 2017). Although there are many studies on the prevalence of neuromyths among teachers, it is still unclear what predicts and protects against misconceptions, as the results of the studies are highly contradictory (Ferrero et al., 2016). In most cases, teachers' lack of knowledge and skills to critically evaluate neuroscience research results and distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims is cited as the reason for the spread of neuromyths (Ferrero et al., 2016). At the same time, the results of a study by Im and colleagues (2018) showed that taking educational psychology courses increased literacy in neuroscience but did not affect the belief in neuromyths. As the authors of the article are not aware of studies carried out about the prevalence of neuromyths in Estonia, this study aimed explore which neuromyths are most common among Estonian student teachers and whether background factors (e.g. age, study courses, curriculum or work experience as a teacher) are related to believing in neuromyths. We were also interested in whether students who had completed courses in educational psychology had better knowledge than those who had not. Methodology A total of 297 student teachers from Tallinn University (N = 221) and The University of Tartu (N = 76) participated in the study. The average age of the respondents was 31, and 167 respondents had work experience as a teacher. The majority of the respondents, i.e. 89%, were native Estonian speakers, 32 (11%) were native Russian speakers. In terms of curricula, the largest group, i.e. 28% (N = 82) of the respondents, were future class teachers, followed by students studying the humanities, i.e. teachers of Estonian and foreign languages as well as history (22%; N = 65). Teachers of natural sciences, i.e. mathematics, informatics, high school natural sciences (N = 39) and teachers of skill subjects, i.e. physical education, the arts, music and technology (N = 38), participated almost equally in the survey. There were 19 students in the multi-subject teacher curriculum, 17 special educators, 19 students in the pedagogy curriculum, six pre-school teachers and five future vocational teachers. One student was in the social pedagogy curriculum, and six students had not defined their curriculum. Before answering the survey on neuromyths, 126 or 42% of the respondents had completed some kind of educational psychology course in development and learning. The questionnaire used for data collection consisted of two parts. The first part concerned demographic indicators such as age, mother tongue, work experience, the curriculum, and the workload as a teacher. The second set of questions was based on questionnaires developed by Dekker and his colleagues (2012) and Im and colleagues (2018), containing a total of 29 statements about the most common neuromyths (14) and general knowledge of the brain functioning (15). T-test and analysis of variance were used to compare mean differences between groups. Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationships between the different characteristics. Results The analysis of student teachers' responses to statements about neuromyths showed, as in several previous studies (Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021), that the most common misconception among prospective teachers was that adapting teaching to students' learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) supports student learning. The second neuromyth in terms of prevalence (79,5%) among student teachers was the belief that brief coordination exercises help improve cooperation between the left and right hemispheres. The third most common neuromyth among students was related to the belief that the first three years of life are most important for human brain development - a total of 76,9% of students considered this statement to be true. In terms of general knowledge about brain functioning, the number of correct answers was significantly higher than in the case of statements about neuromyths. The biggest number of incorrect answers, i.e. 43,1%, was related to the statement that hormones affect the body's internal state but not the person's personality. 57,6% stated that they did not know that myelination, which improves the speed of neuronal communication, intensifies significantly during adolescence. Based on the analysis of the associations between teachers' knowledge and background factors, it should be noted that, as in previous studies (e.g. Hughes et al., 2020), there were no statistically significant differences and myths are prevalent among teacher education students in all curricula. Also, students involved in different curricula did not differ from each other in terms of their general knowledge. However, a weak positive correlation between age and wrong answers related to neuromyths appeared, i.e. younger students were slightly less likely to believe in neuromyths. As for work experience, differences appeared only in terms of general knowledge, i.e. students who did not have work experience demonstrated a better general knowledge of brain functioning than teachers who worked more than 20 hours a week. A comparison of the groups of students based on seniority showed that students with 6-10 years experience gave more correct answers about neuromyths than students with 0-1 years experience. Unlike in several previous studies (e.g. Dekker et al., 2012; Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015), having experiences with some educational psychology courses was positively related to students' knowledge. It means that students who had completed such a course gave significantly more correct answers to both statements about neuromyths and in the domain of general knowledge about brain functioning. At the same time, it must be said that although there was a difference between the two groups, the students who had completed educationalpsychology courses still believed in a large number of neuromyths. In coclusion, it can be stated that the knowledge of teacher education students concerning neuromyths is still poor. In contrast to previous studies, where better general knowledge was often associated with greater belief in neuromyths, in our study, students with better general knowledge had more correct answers about neuromyths. In conclusion, teacher education students' knowledge of cognitive neuroscience, their ability to critically evaluate information obtained from various sources and their ability to read scientific literature need to be improved. Neuromyths as easily entrenched misconceptions by being oversimplified and therefore attractive must be addressed consciously in teacher training, considering knowledge about dealing with conceptual change, a topic that is extensively researched in other complex knowledge domains such as physics, chemistry and mathematics (Lassonde et al., 2016; Potvin, Masson, Lafortune, & Cyr, 2015; Potvin et al., 2020). Also, it is important to develop interdisciplinary collaboration between the fields of neuroscience and education and a two-way dialogue between researchers and practitioners to identify and resolve misunderstandings when they arise and to formulate both scientifically based and pedagogically informative concepts and messages (Dekker et al., 2012; Howard-Jones, 2014). The present study also has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. As researchers, we did not know which topics and to what extent were covered in the educational psychology courses. More detailed mapping of students' prior knowledge and a more accurate overview of the content and scope of their studies would provide essential additional information for interpreting the results. To ensure greater content validity of the research instrument and avoid the possibility that students interpreted some of the questions differently from the researchers, it would be necessary to check the understanding of the statements more closely. In addition to quantitative data collection methods, it would be advisable to use qualitative methods to understand and analyse the origin and background of students' knowledge, including misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]