Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Study: Adaptive Working Memory Training Can Reduce ADHD-related Off-Task Behavior

For a num­ber of rea­sons, there remains an impor­tant need to devel­op research sup­port­ed treat­ments for ADHD in addi­tion to med­ica­tion and behav­ior ther­a­py.

Regard­ing med­ica­tion, not all chil­dren ben­e­fit from tak­ing it, some expe­ri­ence intol­er­a­ble side effects, and many con­tin­ue to strug­gle even when med­ica­tion pro­vides some ben­e­fit. Behav­ior ther­a­py can be dif­fi­cult for par­ents and teach­ers to con­sis­tent­ly imple­ment, and often helps but does not elim­i­nate a child’s behav­ioral prob­lems. Fur­ther­more, nei­ther treat­ment yields pos­i­tive changes that per­sist when the treat­ment is dis­con­tin­ued. Final­ly, despite numer­ous stud­ies doc­u­ment­ing the short- and inter­me­di­ate term ben­e­fits of these treat­ments, evi­dence of their impact on chil­dren’s long-term suc­cess is less evi­dent.

One rel­a­tive­ly recent devel­op­ment in the realm of ADHD treat­ments is work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing. Work­ing mem­o­ry (WM) refers to the abil­i­ty to hold and manip­u­late infor­ma­tion in mind for sub­se­quent use and is crit­i­cal­ly impor­tant for a vari­ety of learn­ing activ­i­ties. For exam­ple, when a child is asked ques­tions about a sto­ry he has read, work­ing mem­o­ry allows the child to retain and review the sto­ry infor­ma­tion in mind to answer the ques­tions. In doing men­tal math, work­ing mem­o­ry is used to hold the dig­its in mind and manip­u­late them, e.g., add or sub­tract, to gen­er­ate the answer.

Work­ing mem­o­ry is also impor­tant in the con­trol of atten­tion and is a strong pre­dic­tor of aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess. It is defi­cient in many indi­vid­u­als with ADHD; in fact, some researchers believe that work­ing mem­o­ry deficits are cen­tral to ADHD and under­line the inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive behav­ior that char­ac­ter­izes the dis­or­der. You can learn more about work­ing mem­o­ry and ADHD here.

Sev­er­al years ago I reviewed a study of work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing for ADHD that yield­ed promis­ing find­ings. Chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to receive either high inten­si­ty (HI) or low inten­si­ty WM train­ing. The HI treat­ment involved per­form­ing com­put­er­ized WM tasks, e.g., remem­ber­ing the sequence in which lights appeared in dif­fer­ent por­tions of a grid, recall­ing a sequence of num­bers in reverse order, where the dif­fi­cul­ty lev­el was reg­u­lar­ly adjust­ed to match the child’s per­for­mance by increas­ing or decreas­ing the items to be recalled. This is described below as ‘adap­tive’ train­ing because the dif­fi­cul­ty lev­el adapts to match the child’s capa­bil­i­ty. In this train­ing con­di­tion, chil­dren are con­sis­tent­ly chal­lenged to expand their work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty.

In the LI con­di­tion, the tasks were sim­i­lar but the dif­fi­cul­ty remained low through­out, i.e., the num­ber of items did not increase when chil­dren respond­ed cor­rect­ly. For these chil­dren, their work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty was not con­sis­tent­ly chal­lenged and was not expect­ed to grow as a result. This served as the con­trol con­di­tion.

Train­ing was con­duct­ed 5 days a week over a 5 week peri­od; each ses­sion last­ed approx­i­mate­ly 30 to 40 min­utes. Fol­low­ing treat­ment, chil­dren who received high inten­si­ty train­ing showed stronger work­ing mem­o­ry per­for­mance than chil­dren in the con­trol con­di­tion; these gains were evi­dent on work­ing mem­o­ry tasks that had not been trained and remained evi­dent 3 months after train­ing end­ed. Fur­ther­more, only chil­dren who received high inten­si­ty train­ing showed sig­nif­i­cant declines in par­ent rat­ings of ADHD symp­toms showed sig­nif­i­cant and mean­ing­ful declines for chil­dren. These declines remained evi­dent 3 months lat­er.

Although these were very pos­i­tive find­ings, a lim­i­ta­tion was that no treat­ment effects were found for teacher rat­ings of chil­dren’s behav­ior. Thus, there was no indi­ca­tion that ben­e­fits observed by par­ents, and mir­rored in the work­ing mem­o­ry assess­ments, had gen­er­al­ized to the class­room. Giv­en the need to improve behav­ior at school for chil­dren with ADHD, it is con­cern­ing that a sim­i­lar pat­tern of find­ings, i.e., train­ing relat­ed gains in work­ing mem­o­ry per­for­mance and in par­ent rat­ings of chil­dren’s behav­ior, but less evi­dence of ben­e­fits observed by teach­ers, has emerged in sub­se­quent stud­ies.

New­ly Pub­lished Study

A study pub­lished online recent­ly in Neu­rother­a­peu­tics [Green et. al., (2012). Will work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing gen­er­al­ize to improve off-task behav­ior in chil­dren with atten­tion-deficit/hyper­ac­tiv­i­ty dis­or­der? Neu­rother­a­peu­tics. DOI 10.1007/s13311-012‑0124‑y] is encour­ag­ing in that it pro­vides that strongest evi­dence to date that ben­e­fits from work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing can gen­er­al­ize to aca­d­e­m­ic set­tings.

Par­tic­i­pants were 26 chil­dren (18 males; ages 7 to 14 years old) who were ran­dom­ly assigned to receive adap­tive work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing or the low inten­si­ty con­trol train­ing. Ten chil­dren were on med­ica­tion and remained on meds dur­ing the study; this was con­trolled for in the analy­ses.

The train­ing pro­gram used was Cogmed Work­ing Mem­o­ry train­ing (the researchers had no affil­i­a­tion with Cogmed). The stan­dard train­ing pro­to­col of 5 ses­sions per week over 5 weeks was employed. Per stan­dard Cogmed pro­ce­dures, train­ing was done at home and was mon­i­tored remote­ly by a qual­i­fied coach to help ensure the pro­to­col was fol­lowed.

The main study out­come was chil­dren’s behav­ior dur­ing the Restrict­ed Aca­d­e­m­ic Sit­u­a­tions Task (RAST). Dur­ing the RAST, which takes place in a lab set­ting, chil­dren are instruct­ed to com­plete a series of aca­d­e­m­ic work sheets for 15 min­utes, and not to leave their seat, or touch any of the toys or games in the room, dur­ing that time. The child is left alone to com­plete the work and their behav­ior is observed from behind a one-way mir­ror. The child’s behav­ior is cod­ed for the amount of off task behav­ior, e.g., look­ing away from the paper, get­ting out of his or her seat, fid­get­ing, vocal­iz­ing, or play­ing with objects unre­lat­ed to the task.

The task thus allows for high­ly con­trolled behav­ioral obser­va­tions and is fre­quent­ly used to eval­u­ate the effect of med­ica­tion on ADHD behav­iors in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal tri­als. It is sen­si­tive to moment to moment off task behav­ior that a teacher or par­ent might not detect.

The main ques­tion asked in this study was whether chil­dren who received adap­tive train­ing would show less off task behav­ior dur­ing the RAST than chil­dren in the con­trol con­di­tion. If so, it would indi­cate a pos­i­tive treat­ment effect of work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing that gen­er­al­ized to a set­ting high­ly rel­e­vant to behav­ior in school. Obser­va­tions of treat­ment and con­trol chil­dren was made by a trained observ­er who did not know which group — adap­tive treat­ment or con­trol — each child was in.

In addi­tion to the RAST, chil­dren’s work­ing mem­o­ry per­for­mance on tasks that dif­fered from those used in train­ing (the Work­ing Mem­o­ry Com­pos­ite from the WISC-IV) and par­ent behav­ior rat­ings were obtained.


Impact on Work­ing Mem­o­ry — Con­sis­tent with what has been report­ed in pri­or work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing stud­ies, chil­dren receiv­ing adap­tive train­ing showed a sig­nif­i­cant increase in the work­ing mem­o­ry score on the WISC-IV after train­ing; chil­dren in the con­trol con­di­tion did not.

Rat­ing scales — Both groups showed a decline on par­ents’ rat­ings of ADHD behav­iors and this did not dif­fer between the groups. Base­line scores for chil­dren in the adap­tive train­ing group were low­er than in the con­trol group so they may have had less room for improve­ment.

Behav­ior dur­ing the RAST — The main out­come mea­sure from the RAST was the amount of off task behav­ior, i.e., look­ing away from the work sheet rather than focus­ing on it, dur­ing the 15 minute seat work peri­od. At base­line, scores for each group were equiv­a­lent. Fol­low­ing train­ing, when the RAST was read­minin­stered, off-task behav­ior for chil­dren in the con­trol group remained at their base­line lev­el. For the adap­tive train­ing group, there was a pro­nounced and sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant decline. Adap­tive­ly trained chil­dren were also less like­ly to play with objects dur­ing the task. Dif­fer­ences in the oth­er behav­ior cat­e­gories — fid­get­ing, leav­ing the seat, and vocal­iz­ing — were not sig­nif­i­cant.

Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions

This is an impor­tant study — both for Cogmed Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing specif­i­cal­ly and the cog­ni­tive train­ing field in gen­er­al. The results strong­ly sug­gest that work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing can yield reduc­tions in off task behav­ior dur­ing aca­d­e­m­ic work for chil­dren with ADHD. This has not been pre­vi­ous­ly demon­strat­ed and begins to address an impor­tant gap in the research base on work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing for ADHD, i.e., the lim­it­ed indi­ca­tion of train­ing effects that gen­er­al­ize to the class­room. While the RAST reflects a con­trolled obser­va­tion set­ting rather than an actu­al class­room, behav­ior dur­ing the RAST does cor­re­late with in class behav­ior. And, it is a fre­quent­ly used and accept­ed mea­sure for deter­min­ing med­ica­tion treat­ment effects for ADHD.

The study has sev­er­al strengths includ­ing a care­ful­ly diag­nosed sam­ple, the use of ran­dom assign­ment, an appro­pri­ate con­trol group, the use of mul­ti­ple out­come mea­sures, and observers who were blind to chil­dren’s treat­ment assign­ment. These are all key ele­ments of a care­ful­ly designed inter­ven­tion tri­al.

As with any sin­gle study, there are also lim­i­ta­tions to note. Key among these is a rel­a­tive­ly small sam­ple size. Thus, repli­ca­tion with a larg­er sam­ple would cer­tain­ly be war­rant­ed. And, although the RAST pro­vides a valid and high­ly con­trolled set­ting to observe behav­ior, future stud­ies should also include obser­va­tions of chil­dren’s behav­ior in their actu­al class­room. Although this makes for a more com­plex study, the class­room is ulti­mate­ly the set­ting where increas­es in focused, on task behav­ior dur­ing aca­d­e­m­ic work needs to occur. Final­ly, this study did not fol­low par­tic­i­pants beyond the end of treat­ment so the dura­tion of ben­e­fits observed is not known.

These lim­i­ta­tions not with­stand­ing, the authors have pre­sent­ed impor­tant new data on the poten­tial ben­e­fits of work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing by demon­strat­ing gen­er­al­iza­tion of train­ing ben­e­fits to a rel­e­vant set­ting for aca­d­e­m­ic work. Giv­en the grow­ing inter­est in work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing — and oth­er forms of cog­ni­tive train­ing — it is like­ly that results from a num­ber of addi­tion­al stud­ies on these approach­es will become avail­able over the next sev­er­al years.

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 ...

Leave a Reply

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

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)