Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


New Review of Neurofeedback Treatment for ADHD — Current State of the Science

neurofeedback adhd reviewsNeu­ro­feed­back — also known as EEG Biofeed­back — is an approach for treat­ing ADHD in which indi­vid­u­als are pro­vid­ed real-time feed­back on their brain­wave activ­i­ty and taught to alter their typ­i­cal EEG pat­tern to one that is con­sis­tent with a focused and atten­tive state. Accord­ing to neu­ro­feed­back pro­po­nents, this often results in improved atten­tion and reduced hyperactive/impulsive behav­ior.

Sev­er­al years ago I sum­ma­rized the sci­en­tif­ic sup­port for neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment — see here — and not­ed that although pos­i­tive find­ings had been report­ed in mul­ti­ple pub­lished stud­ies, lim­i­ta­tions of these stud­ies led many researchers to regard neu­ro­feed­back as a promis­ing, but unproven treat­ment.

The Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion has estab­lished a 5‑level sys­tem for grad­ing the evi­dence in sup­port of men­tal health treat­ments. These grades, and their asso­ci­at­ed lev­els of research sup­port, are as fol­lows:

Lev­el 1 Not Empir­i­cal­ly Sup­port­ed 

Sup­port­ed only through anec­do­tal evi­dence or non-peer reviewed case-stud­ies.

Lev­el 2 Pos­si­bly Effi­ca­cious 

Shown to have a sig­nif­i­cant impact in at least one study, but the study lacked a ran­dom­ized assign­ment between con­trols.

Lev­el 3 Prob­a­bly Effi­ca­cious 

Shown to pro­duce pos­i­tive effects in more than one clin­i­cal, obser­va­tion­al wait list or with­in-sub­ject or between-sub­ject study.

Lev­el 4 Effi­ca­cious 

Shown to be more effec­tive than a no-treat­ment or place­bo con­trol group; the study must con­tain valid and clear­ly spec­i­fied out­come mea­sures, and it must be replic­a­ble by at least two inde­pen­dent researchers demon­strat­ing the same degree of effi­ca­cy.

Lev­el 5 Effi­ca­cious and Spe­cif­ic 

Shown to be sta­tis­ti­cal­ly supe­ri­or to cred­i­ble place­bo ther­a­pies or to actu­al treat­ments, and it must be shown as such in two or more inde­pen­dent stud­ies.

Using the grad­ing sys­tem above, and based on stud­ies pub­lished through 2005, the con­clu­sion reached by the Pro­fes­sion­al Advi­so­ry Board of CHADD was that evi­dence sup­port­ing neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD war­rant­ed a Lev­el 2, or ‘Pos­si­bly Effi­ca­cious’. You can read CHAD­D’s sum­ma­ry state­ment at and I believe you will find this to be of inter­est.

Based on a research base that includes more recent­ly pub­lished stud­ies, how­ev­er, the con­clu­sions reached by Arn et. al., (2009) were far more pos­i­tive. These researchers con­duct­ed a meta-analy­sis of 15 stud­ies, 4 of which were report­ed to be ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als. Their con­clu­sion was that “Neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD can be con­sid­ered ‘Effi­ca­cious and Spe­cif­ic’ (Lev­el 5) with a large effect size for inat­ten­tion and impul­siv­i­ty and a medi­um effect size for hyper­ac­tiv­i­ty.” This is a very dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion from the CHADD review and it is under­stand­able that par­ents, edu­ca­tors, and pro­fes­sion­als would be con­fused about the strength of the evi­dence base for neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment.

New Review Pro­vides Some Clar­i­fi­ca­tion

The Jour­nal of Atten­tion Dis­or­ders recent­ly pub­lished an updat­ed review of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD that helps clar­i­fy its sci­en­tif­ic sup­port [Loft­house et. al., (2011). A review of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD. Jour­nal of Atten­tion Dis­or­ders, pub­lished online 16 Novem­ber 2011. DOI: 10.1177/1087054711427530]. The authors include sci­en­tists who have con­duct­ed research tri­als of neu­ro­feed­back and also been part of the Mul­ti­modal Treat­ment Study of ADHD (MTA Study), the largest ADHD treat­ment study ever con­duct­ed. They are thus well equipped, in my view, to pro­vide a thor­ough and objec­tive review of a com­pli­cat­ed area.

The research base for their review was 14 stud­ies of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for chil­dren with ADHD in which par­tic­i­pants were ran­dom­ized to neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment or a con­trol con­di­tion. Eleven of these stud­ies were con­duct­ed between 2005 and 2010; this speaks to the strong accel­er­a­tion of neu­ro­feed­back research, which is a wel­come devel­op­ment.

Their review was lim­it­ed to those that ran­dom­ly assigned chil­dren to treat­ment or con­trol con­di­tions which is an essen­tial ele­ment of rig­or­ous treat­ment stud­ies. For each study, the authors pro­vide a detailed cri­tique it’s strengths and lim­i­ta­tions. As a detailed review of the indi­vid­ual study cri­tiques is beyond what I can do here, below I sum­ma­rize the authors’ con­clu­sions on the state of the sci­ence.

Results Sum­ma­ry

Treat­ment effects

When aver­aged across the stud­ies for which appro­pri­ate out­come data was avail­able, the over­all mean effect size (ES) was .79 for inat­ten­tion mea­sures, and .71 for hyperactivity/impulsivity mea­sures. These are in a range that would be con­sid­ered ‘large’ for inat­ten­tion and ‘mod­er­ate’ for hyperactivity/impulsivity and are below what is typ­i­cal­ly report­ed for stim­u­lant med­ica­tion. Five of the stud­ies showed neu­ro­phys­i­o­log­i­cal changes that were spe­cif­ic to neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment. Over­all, these results are con­sis­tent with ben­e­fi­cial effects of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD.

Sum­ma­ry of study lim­i­ta­tions

The authors iden­ti­fied 5 dif­fer­ent lim­i­ta­tions that under­mine the con­clu­sions about neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment effi­ca­cy that can be made.

1. Min­i­mal use of Triple Blind­ing 

The ide­al study would be one where chil­dren, par­ents and/or teach­ers who rate chil­dren’s behav­ior before and after treat­ment, and clin­i­cians don’t know whether the child received active treat­ment. This elim­i­nates — or at least strong­ly reduces — the like­li­hood that appar­ent ben­e­fits asso­ci­at­ed with neu­ro­feed­back can be explained by expec­ta­tions that the child would ben­e­fit.

Only 4 of the 14 stud­ies uti­lized triple blind pro­ce­dures, how­ev­er, and in 6 of the stud­ies none of these 3 sources was blind.

2. Nature of Con­trol Group 

The strongest neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment study would be one that used ‘sham’ treat­ment for chil­dren ran­dom­ized to the con­trol group, i.e., par­tic­i­pants receive feed­back that is not linked to the EEG state that is the focus of actu­al train­ing. The ben­e­fit of this is that — in the­o­ry — it keeps chil­dren, par­ents, and clin­i­cians blind to whether real treat­ment is being pro­vid­ed, thus elim­i­nat­ing poten­tial bias­es to the out­come rat­ings they pro­vide.

For the 14 stud­ies review, how­ev­er, only 4 employed sham treat­ment. And, of those 4, only 1 used what was felt to be a tru­ly cred­i­ble ‘sham’. In the absence of a cred­i­ble ‘sham’ treat­ment, con­duct­ing a ‘triple blind’ study is not pos­si­ble.

The oth­er stud­ies either used ‘wait list’ con­trols or com­pared neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment to a dif­fer­ent type of cog­ni­tive train­ing. The use of wait list and alter­na­tive treat­ment con­trol groups are preva­lent in the treat­ment lit­er­a­ture, but are less able than a true ‘sham’ con­di­tion to unequiv­o­cal­ly estab­lish that treat­ment gains asso­ci­at­ed with neu­ro­feed­back are attrib­ut­able to the feed­back chil­dren receive on their EEG state.

3. Insuf­fi­cient iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, mea­sure­ment, and con­trol of con­comi­tant treat­ments

Chil­dren par­tic­i­pat­ing in these stud­ies were fre­quent­ly receiv­ing oth­er treat­ments as well, either med­ica­tion, psy­chother­a­py, or edu­ca­tion­al inter­ven­tions. Because the pres­ence and changes in con­comi­tant treat­ments tend­ed not to be care­ful­ly mon­i­tored, how­ev­er, pos­i­tive change asso­ci­at­ed with neu­ro­feed­back may have been caused, or at least influ­enced in some way, by unre­port­ed changes in these oth­er treat­ments.

4. Gen­er­al lack of post-treat­ment fol­low-up 

Fol­low­ing chil­dren beyond the end of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment is crit­i­cal for deter­min­ing long-term effi­ca­cy and/or the need for boost­er ses­sions. How­ev­er, only 3 of the stud­ies includ­ed a post-treat­ment fol­low up of neu­ro­feed­back. And, in these stud­ies, the pro­ce­dures for assess­ing the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of treat­ment ben­e­fits were judged to be com­pro­mised. Thus, the authors con­clude that the dura­tion of any gains asso­ci­at­ed with neu­ro­feed­back remains large­ly unknown.

5. Lim­it­ed atten­tion to pos­si­ble adverse side effects

Although neu­ro­feed­back is described as safe and with­out side effects, only 1 study actu­al­ly mon­i­tored and report­ed adverse events that chil­dren and par­ents relat­ed to treat­ment. Although no such effects were found, some have argued that all tru­ly effec­tive treat­ments pro­duce some side effects in some per­cent­age of indi­vid­u­als who receive them. Thus, rather than not attend­ing to this pos­si­bil­i­ty in neu­ro­feed­back stud­ies because the treat­ment is assumed to be safe, the authors sug­gest that this is an area where greater scruti­ny is war­rant­ed.

Over­all Sum­ma­ry

Based on their review of the lit­er­a­ture, the authors argue that “…due to the lack of blind­ing and sham con­trol con­di­tions in ran­dom­ized stud­ies” neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD should not be con­sid­ered ‘Effi­ca­cious and Spe­cif­ic’ as was con­clud­ed in the 2009 review by Arn and his col­leagues.

Instead, they believe that a grade of 3 on the APA evi­dence scale, which cor­re­sponds to ‘Prob­a­bly Effi­ca­cious’ is war­rant­ed. They note that a large mul­ti­site triple-blind sham-con­trolled Ran­dom­ized Con­trolled Tri­al is need­ed to set­tle the issue.

Clear­ly, it is pos­si­ble to review the same evi­dence and reach a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion. Some would argue that the authors are over­ly cau­tious in the evi­dence grade they assign and that more is being required of neu­ro­feed­back than of oth­er ADHD treat­ments. For exam­ple, although the long-term ben­e­fits of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment may remain rel­a­tive­ly unknown, evi­dence on the long-terms ben­e­fits of med­ica­tion treat­ment is also lim­it­ed.

One could also argue that requir­ing a triple-blind tri­al with a cred­i­ble sham con­di­tion is unrea­son­able because this is a high­er stan­dard than that employed most psy­chother­a­py out­come research. In stud­ies to estab­lish the effi­ca­cy of behav­ioral treat­ment for ADHD, for exam­ple, a triple blind tri­al is not pos­si­ble because clin­i­cians know what treat­ment they are pro­vid­ing and par­ents will know what treat­ment their child is receiv­ing. Despite this, behav­ior ther­a­py is con­sid­ered a strong evi­dence-based treat­ment for ADHD.

In response to this objec­tion, the authors argue that the high­est stan­dard of sci­en­tif­ic rig­or should be required for any treat­ment offered to the pub­lic for which triple blind stud­ies are pos­si­ble (they are not pos­si­ble for behav­ior ther­a­py), and which are not pre­clud­ed by strong eth­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions. They note that this is espe­cial­ly true for neu­ro­feed­back, as such a study is pos­si­ble and the treat­ment requires sub­stan­tial time, effort, and expense.

Some Final Thoughts

My view is con­sis­tent with the authors. I would very much like to see the type of study they call for and believe the evi­dence grade they sug­gest of ‘Prob­a­bly Effi­ca­cious’ is appro­pri­ate. Hav­ing this con­clu­sion pub­lished in a sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal that does not focus on neu­ro­feed­back research rep­re­sents sig­nif­i­cant progress for the field as it was not too long ago that a com­mon­ly held view seemed to be that there was lit­tle if any cred­i­ble evi­dence sup­port­ing this treat­ment.

It is also impor­tant to rec­og­nize that what remains unclear is not whether chil­dren with ADHD who receive care­ful­ly admin­is­tered neu­ro­feed­back will gen­er­al­ly derive some ben­e­fit — the stud­ies reviewed in this arti­cle estab­lish that — but, rather, why does ben­e­fit occurs. Here is what the authors say:

…due to the lack of con­trols, it is unclear as to whether the large ESs for impul­siv­i­ty and inat­ten­tion and the medi­um ES for hyper­ac­tiv­i­ty are due to the active com­po­nent of EF and/or non­spe­cif­ic treat­ment fac­tors.”

In oth­er words, the research estab­lish­es that neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment yields ben­e­fits for core ADHD symp­toms but is not clear on what explains those ben­e­fits. Is it the spe­cif­ic feed­back on EEG activ­i­ty and learn­ing to con­trol that activ­i­ty that pro­duces the gains? Or do non­spe­cif­ic fac­tors asso­ci­at­ed with the treat­ment, e.g., expectan­cy effects, clin­i­cian atten­tion, praise for the effort involved, etc., that actu­al­ly accounts for the gains?

This is the impor­tant sci­en­tif­ic ques­tion that remains to be answered. In the mean­time, how­ev­er, the research reviewed here indi­cates that if par­ents obtain high qual­i­ty neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for their child there is a rea­son­able basis for expect­ing that ben­e­fits will occur. The deci­sion to do so should be made with the knowl­edge that med­ica­tion treat­ment and behav­ioral ther­a­py would be regard­ed as hav­ing stronger research sup­port at this time.

To dis­miss neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment sim­ply as ‘unproven’, how­ev­er, ignores the con­sid­er­able research on this approach that has been con­duct­ed. Help­ing fam­i­lies bet­ter under­stand the strengths and lim­i­ta­tions of this research can enable them to make a bet­ter informed deci­sion about whether to con­sid­er this treat­ment option for their child.

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.

Pre­vi­ous arti­cles by Dr. Rabin­er:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

One Response

  1. Dr. L. Steiner says:

    Thanks so much for this fair, bal­anced and extreme­ly infor­ma­tive arti­cle. Is there any­thing more cur­rent on this top­ic?

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Cognitive Neuroscience, Health & Wellness

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

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)