Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

New Study Supports Neurofeedback Treatment for ADHD

Neu­ro­feed­back — also known as EEG Biofeed­back — is an approach for treat­ing ADHD in which indi­vid­u­als are pro­vid­ed real-time feed­back on their brain­wave pat­terns and taught to alter their typ­i­cal EEG pat­tern to one that is con­sis­tent with a focused, atten­tive state. This is typ­i­cal­ly done by col­lect­ing EEG data from indi­vid­u­als as they focus on stim­uli pre­sent­ed on a com­put­er screen. Their abil­i­ty to con­trol the stim­uli, for exam­ple, keep­ing the smile on a smi­ley face, is con­tin­gent on main­tain­ing the par­tic­u­lar EEG state being trained. Accord­ing to neu­ro­feed­back pro­po­nents, learn­ing how to do this dur­ing train­ing gen­er­al­izes to real world sit­u­a­tions and this results in improved atten­tion and reduced hyperactive/impulsive behav­ior.

Neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD has been con­tro­ver­sial in the field for many years and remains so today. Although a num­ber of pub­lished stud­ies have report­ed pos­i­tive results many promi­nent ADHD researchers believe that prob­lems with the design of these stud­ies pre­clude con­clud­ing that neu­ro­feed­back is an effec­tive treat­ment. These lim­i­ta­tions have includ­ed the absence of ran­dom assign­ment, the lack of appro­pri­ate con­trol groups, raters who are not ‘blind’ to children’s treat­ment sta­tus, and small sam­ples. For addi­tion­al back­ground, you can find a recent review I wrote on exist­ing research sup­port for neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment of ADHD — along with links to exten­sive reviews of sev­er­al recent­ly pub­lished stud­ies -: How Strong is the Research Sup­port for Neu­ro­feed­back in Atten­tion Deficits?

- Results from a New Study of Neu­ro­feed­back -

Recent­ly, a study of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD was pub­lished that address­es sev­er­al lim­i­ta­tions that have under­mined pri­or research [Gevensleben, et al., (2009). Is neu­ro­feed­back an effi­ca­cious treat­ment for ADHD? A ran­dom­ized con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­al. Jour­nal of Child Psy­chol­o­gy and Psy­chi­a­try.]

The study was con­duct­ed in Ger­many and began with 102 chil­dren aged 8 to 12. All had been care­ful­ly diag­nosed with ADHD and approx­i­mate­ly over 90% had nev­er received med­ica­tion treat­ment. About 80% were boys. Chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to one of two treat­ment con­di­tions: 36 ses­sions of neu­ro­feed­back train­ing or 36 ses­sions of com­put­er­ized atten­tion train­ing. The com­put­er­ized atten­tion train­ing task was intend­ed to serve as the con­trol inter­ven­tion. Train­ing was con­duct­ed in two 50-minute blocks per ses­sions, with a short break in-between; chil­dren in both groups par­tic­i­pat­ed in two to three such train­ing ses­sions per week.

- Descrip­tion of Train­ing -

Neu­ro­feed­back Train­ing — As not­ed above, neu­ro­feed­back entails pro­vid­ing chil­dren with real-time feed­back on their EEG state so that they become able to learn how to cre­ate and main­tain a state that is con­sis­tent with focused atten­tion. This is done by link­ing their abil­i­ty to con­trol what appears on the com­put­er screen to their abil­i­ty to pro­duce and main­tain the EEG state being trained. Tech­ni­cal details of the train­ing pro­to­cols are not sum­ma­rized here but were based on research find­ings sug­gest­ing the spe­cif­ic EEG dif­fer­ences between chil­dren with and with­out ADHD that train­ing should address. For exam­ple, one part of train­ing focused on teach­ing chil­dren to ele­vate their pro­duc­tion of high­er fre­quen­cy beta waves and supress the pro­duc­tion of low­er fre­quen­cy theta waves. This is based on pri­or find­ings that indi­vid­u­als with ADHD tend to have an ele­vat­ed ratio of theta to beta activ­i­ty rel­a­tive (see Neurofeedback/ Quan­ti­ta­tive EEG for ADHD diag­no­sis).

Com­put­er­ized Atten­tion Train­ing — This treat­ment was based on a pro­gram called ‘Skil­lies’, described as award-win­ning Ger­man learn­ing soft­ware that pro­vides sys­tem­at­ic exer­cis­es in visu­al and audi­to­ry per­cep­tion, vig­i­lance, sus­tained atten­tion, and reac­tiv­i­ty. It was con­sid­ered the ‘con­trol’ con­di­tion to which the results of neu­ro­feed­back train­ing was com­pared.

Per­form­ing well on the pro­gram requires chil­dren to sus­tain their atten­tion to a vari­ety of game-like tasks that become increas­ing­ly chal­leng­ing and that pro­vide chil­dren with fre­quent feed­back about their per­for­mance. Chil­dren thus receive extend­ed prac­tice in ‘pay­ing atten­tion’ for increas­ing peri­ods to tasks that become increas­ing­ly demand­ing and need to learn to sus­tain their atten­tion in order to do well. Unlike neu­ro­feed­back treatment,however, no direct feed­back on EEG state is pro­vid­ed.

- Exper­i­men­tal Con­trols -

As not­ed above, chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to treat­ment con­di­tion, which is essen­tial when com­par­ing dif­fer­ent inter­ven­tions. Efforts were also made to make the inter­ven­tion expe­ri­ence as sim­i­lar as pos­si­ble, except for the crit­i­cal dif­fer­ence as to whether chil­dren received direct train­ing in man­ag­ing their EEG state. Thus, treat­ment for both groups entailed com­put­er-game like tasks that demand­ed atten­tion. In both con­di­tions, chil­dren were encour­aged to devel­op strate­gies to focus atten­tion and to prac­tice these strate­gies at home and school. They also received sim­i­lar amounts of atten­tion and praise for doing so.

By equal­iz­ing as many aspects of the train­ing expe­ri­ence as pos­si­ble, the researchers could attribute any out­come dif­fer­ences that emerged to crit­i­cal dif­fer­ences in the pro­grams them­selves, i.e., whether feed­back on EEG state was pro­vid­ed, as opposed to some extra­ne­ous fac­tor such as atten­tion from the exper­i­menters, time spent on a demand­ing com­put­er task, etc.

In addi­tion to these impor­tant con­trols, efforts were made to keep par­ents and teach­ers ‘blind’ to the type of train­ing chil­dren received. Thus, par­ents were only told that their child would receive either of two promis­ing com­put­er-based treat­ments for ADHD. They also did not accom­pa­ny their child into the treat­ment room to observe. Children’s teach­ers were also not informed about the child’s treat­ment. Although a num­ber of par­ents became aware of which treat­ment their child received, and per­haps some teach­ers did as well, it is not pos­si­ble to keep every­one tru­ly ‘blind’ in a study like this.

- Mea­sur­ing Treat­ment Out­comes -

The main out­come mea­sure used were par­ent and teacher rat­ings of children’s ADHD symp­toms. In addi­tion to rat­ings of core inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms, rat­ings were col­lect­ed on a vari­ety of oth­er behav­iors, e.g., oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior, con­duct prob­lems, emo­tion­al prob­lems, and social prob­lems. These rat­ing scales were obtained before and after treat­ment.

To rule out place­bo effects as an expla­na­tion for any treat­ment dif­fer­ences found, the researchers also asked par­ents about their atti­tudes towards treat­ment, how moti­vat­ed they thought their chil­dren were, and how sat­is­fied they were with their child’s treat­ment.

- Results -

Pre­lim­i­nary analy­sis revealed no group dif­fer­ences in par­ents’ atti­tudes towards, or sat­is­fac­tion with, their child’s treat­ment or in how moti­vat­ed they felt their child was. These fac­tors thus should not have influ­enced par­ents’ rat­ings of core symp­toms.

Results of the par­ent and teacher behav­ior rat­ings indi­cat­ed the fol­low­ing:

1. Par­ents of chil­dren treat­ed with neu­ro­feed­back report­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms than par­ents of con­trol chil­dren, i.e,. those who received com­put­er­ized atten­tion train­ing. The size of the group dif­fer­ence was in a range that would be con­sid­ered mod­er­ate, i.e., about .5 stan­dard devi­a­tions.

2. Teach­ers of chil­dren treat­ed with neu­ro­feed­back report­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms than teach­ers of con­trol chil­dren. The size of the group dif­fer­ence was sim­i­lar in mag­ni­tude to that found for par­ents, about .5 stan­dard devi­a­tions.

3. Apart from these dif­fer­ences in core ADHD symp­toms, few group dif­fer­ences were found. How­ev­er, neu­ro­feed­back was asso­ci­at­ed with greater reduc­tions in par­ents’ rat­ings of oppo­si­tion­al and aggres­sive behav­ior. Teacher rat­ings for the two groups did not dif­fer on any of the remain­ing behav­ioral mea­sures.

The results sum­ma­rized above reflect aver­age dif­fer­ences between the groups. The authors also exam­ined the per­cent­age of chil­dren in each group that were judged to derive sig­nif­i­cant ben­e­fit where this was defined as at least a 25% reduc­tion in core ADHD symp­toms. Fifty-one per­cent of chil­dren in the neu­ro­feed­back group met this thresh­old com­pared to only 26% of chil­dren in the atten­tion train­ing con­trol group. This dif­fer­ence was sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant as well.

- Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions -

This was a well-designed study of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD that used ran­dom assign­ment, blind raters, and includ­ed an appro­pri­ate con­trol group. Results indi­cate that neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater reduc­tions in par­ent and teacher rat­ings of core ADHD symp­toms than the com­par­i­son treat­ment. Fur­ther­more, the mag­ni­tude of the reduc­tions appear large enough to be clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful. Although the impact of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment on oth­er aspects of children’s func­tion­ing was less pro­nounced, sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in par­ents’ rat­ings of oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior were also found.

Over­all, these find­ings add to the research sup­port for neu­ro­feed­back as a treat­ment for ADHD. How­ev­er, despite the many strengths of this study, there are con­cerns to note and rea­sons why some researchers will find a basis for crit­i­ciz­ing it. The main con­cerns — and my own take on them — include the fol­low­ing:

1. With­out get­ting too tech­ni­cal, some researchers will argue that the sta­tis­ti­cal tests used in this study were not ide­al and may have over­es­ti­mat­ed the advan­tages of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment. My sense from exam­in­ing the data is that the pri­ma­ry find­ings would hold up even if more con­ser­v­a­tive sta­tis­ti­cal tests were employed. How­ev­er, it would be real­ly nice to see that done.

2. Neu­ro­feed­back is sup­posed to work by teach­ing chil­dren to trans­form their EEG state to one that is char­ac­ter­is­tic of chil­dren with­out ADHD. How­ev­er, there were no EEG mea­sures tak­en in this study. Thus, there is no way to know whether neu­ro­feed­back actu­al­ly result­ed in these hypoth­e­sized changes in EEG. While this is cer­tain­ly true, this has more to do with doc­u­ment­ing the mech­a­nism by which neu­ro­feed­back led to reduc­tions in ADHD symp­toms and has noth­ing to do with whether those reduc­tions actu­al­ly occurred.

I believe that some neu­ro­feed­back prac­ti­tion­ers would argue that this may have also dimin­ished the ben­e­fits pro­vid­ed by neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment. The rea­son for this is that train­ing was not matched to the spe­cif­ic EEG para­me­ters that need­ed to be altered for each indi­vid­ual and that addi­tion­al ben­e­fits would have accrued had this been done. Whether this is actu­al­ly the case, how­ev­er, would require addi­tion­al research to deter­mine.

3. No mea­sures of children’s aca­d­e­m­ic func­tion­ing were col­lect­ed. Because improv­ing aca­d­e­m­ic per­for­mance is a crit­i­cal treat­ment tar­get for most chil­dren with ADHD, the absence of this data is an impor­tant study lim­i­ta­tion. There is no argu­ing with this and it is unfor­tu­nate that mea­sures of aca­d­e­m­ic per­for­mance in the class­room were not col­lect­ed.

4. No long-term fol­low up was con­duct­ed. There is thus no basis for know­ing whether neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment result­ed in any endur­ing ben­e­fits. While this is cer­tain­ly a lim­i­ta­tion, it should be not­ed that nei­ther med­ica­tion treat­ment nor behav­ioral treat­ment have been shown to have endur­ing ben­e­fits after treat­ment ends. How­ev­er, one of the reput­ed advan­tages of neu­ro­feed­back is that it may result in endur­ing gains. Thus, adding a long-term fol­low up to this study would have been an impor­tant addi­tion.

5. It is impor­tant to remem­ber that when improve­ment was defined as at least a 25% reduc­tion in core ADHD symp­toms, about 50% of chil­dren treat­ed with neu­ro­feed­back did not meet this thresh­old. Thus, many chil­dren did not derive sig­nif­i­cant ben­e­fit from this treat­ment even though the ben­e­fits aver­aged across all chil­dren were sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant.

This is not sur­pris­ing as no treat­ment — includ­ing med­ica­tion — will help every­one. How­ev­er, the rate of non-respon­ders is less than what is typ­i­cal­ly found in con­trolled stud­ies of med­ica­tion treat­ment and this is impor­tant to remain aware of.

Despite these lim­i­ta­tions and con­cerns, my take on this study is that it rep­re­sents an impor­tant addi­tion to the research lit­er­a­ture on neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD. In the con­text of oth­er pos­i­tive find­ings that have been report­ed for neu­ro­feed­back, it pro­vides addi­tion­al basis for regard­ing this as an extreme­ly promis­ing treat­ment approach for some chil­dren with ADHD.

Rabiner_David– Dr. David Rabin­er is a child clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist and Direc­tor of Under­grad­u­ate Stud­ies in the Depart­ment of Psy­chol­ogy and Neu­ro­science at Duke Uni­ver­sity. He pub­lishes Atten­tion Research Update, an online newslet­ter that helps par­ents, pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors keep up with the lat­est research on ADHD, and teach­es the online course  How to Nav­i­gate Con­ven­tion­al and Com­ple­men­tary ADHD Treat­ments for Healthy Brain Devel­op­ment.

Relat­ed arti­cles by Dr. Rabin­er

- Neurofeedback/ Quan­ti­ta­tive EEG for ADHD diag­no­sis

- Promis­ing Cog­ni­tive Train­ing Stud­ies for ADHD

- Mind­ful­ness Med­i­ta­tion for Adults & Teens with ADHD

- How Strong is the Research Sup­port for Neu­ro­feed­back in Atten­tion Deficits?

- Self-Reg­u­la­tion and Barkley’s The­o­ry of ADHD

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

3 Responses

  1. M. A. Greenstein, Ph.D. says:

    Giv­en my lim­it­ed work with ADHD stu­dents and in light of my knowl­edge of the field of ADHD coach­ing, the eeg biofeed­back study appears to point the way to future cog­ni­tive test­ing that as Dr. Rabin­er points out, oper­ates on a whole sys­tems mod­el of research­ing com­plex­i­ty.

    I’d be curi­ous to know what oth­er treat­ment plans had been enact­ed, before the EEG test­ing began, e.g., on the atten­tion scale, how EEG pat­terns mea­sured relat­ed soma-sen­so­ry track­ing.

  2. Hel­lo M.A.: can you give me ref­er­ences to pub­lished high-qual­i­ty clin­i­cal tri­als that mea­sured effi­ca­cy of what you call “soma-sen­so­ry track­ing”? If they are spe­cif­ic to ADHD, even bet­ter, giv­en the top­ic of this arti­cle! As you may know, Dr. Rabin­er reviews the evi­dence behind a vari­ety of inter­ven­tions that may help peo­ple with ADHD, and I have nev­er seen him talk/ speak of that (nor have I encoun­tered rel­e­vant ref­er­ences before).

    Thank you!

  3. David — I read this and also your post on mind­ful­ness med­i­ta­tion, and think the two tech­niques seem to be very sim­i­lar. Is not using a neu­ro­feed­back mech­a­nism sim­ply anoth­er form of mind­ful­ness?

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness, Technology

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Slidedecks & Recordings Available — click image below

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm and think tank tracking health and performance applications of brain science.