TL;DR: the word "brain" in popular-science article titles is almost always clickbait and almost always bullshit.<p>This article is a great example of something I notice way too often: in so many articles that are supposedly about the brain, if you replace all the brain talk with talk about the mind, <i>virtually nothing about the article changes</i>.<p>In most of this article, that replacement isn't even necessary since there's very little brain talk, considering the word "brain" is in the title. It's almost all about tests of cognitive performance and visual perception. (Yes, everyone knows cognitive performance depends in some way on your brain — but from the test's point of view it doesn't matter whether you have neurons or jello or a dancing bear inside your head giving you the answers.)<p>But even the one part that does seem to rely on neuroscience only talks about the time it takes neurons to form connections. I'm sure it's true, but how different would our understanding of napping really be if we had never heard of synapses at all? At least, how different as far as this article is concerned? We'd still be able to talk about a schedule of learning just the same.<p>I'm not trying to insult academic (i.e., <i>real</i>) neuroscience. I've read several neuroscientists who express similar frustration with this type of publicization of their work.<p>Edit: I like naps just fine.