Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Is working memory training the priority for ADHD patients?

ADHD Attention Deficit DisorderThere are sev­er­al rea­sons why it is impor­tant to devel­op evi­dence-based ADHD treat­ments in addi­tion to med­ica­tion and behav­ior ther­a­py.

Not all chil­dren ben­e­fit from med­ica­tion, some expe­ri­ence intol­er­a­ble side effects, and many con­tin­ue to strug­gle despite the ben­e­fits pro­vid­ed by med­ica­tion.

Behav­ior ther­a­py can be dif­fi­cult for par­ents to con­sis­tent­ly imple­ment, and does not gen­er­al­ly reduce behav­ior dif­fi­cul­ties to nor­ma­tive lev­els.

Fur­ther­more, although both treat­ments can help man­age ADHD symp­toms, they gen­er­al­ly do not induce changes that per­sist after treat­ment ends.

Final­ly, despite numer­ous stud­ies doc­u­ment­ing the short- and inter­me­di­ate term ben­e­fits of med­ica­tion and behav­ior ther­a­py, their impact on chil­dren’s long-term suc­cess remains to be clear­ly doc­u­ment­ed.

In response to these lim­i­ta­tions, researchers have shown grow­ing inter­est in whether cog­ni­tive train­ing — gen­er­al­ly done via com­put­er — can induce more last­ing changes in chil­dren’s abil­i­ty to focus and attend. One approach that has shown promise in help­ing youth with ADHD, and which is now wide­ly avail­able, is Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing.

Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing is based on find­ings that Work­ing mem­o­ry (WM) — the abil­i­ty to hold and manip­u­late infor­ma­tion in mind for sub­se­quent use — is fre­quent­ly com­pro­mised in youth with ADHD and may con­tribute sig­nif­i­cant­ly to symp­toms of inat­ten­tion. WM deficits also to con­tribute to the aca­d­e­m­ic strug­gles that many chil­dren with ADHD expe­ri­ence. Devel­op­ing an inter­ven­tion to enhance WM in chil­dren with ADHD could thus be extreme­ly help­ful.

Sev­er­al pub­lished stud­ies sug­gest that WM train­ing is a promis­ing inter­ven­tion for chil­dren with ADHD. In one, chil­dren with ADHD were ran­dom­ly assigned to high inten­si­ty (HI) or low inten­si­ty (LI) 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 called ‘adap­tive’ train­ing because the dif­fi­cul­ty lev­el adapts to match the child’s per­for­mance and 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 was con­sid­ered the con­trol con­di­tion.

Each group trained 30–40 min­utes per day, 5 days per week, for 5 weeks with train­ing super­vised by par­ents. Par­ents were sup­port­ed through week­ly phone calls with a trained coach whose role was to help make sure train­ing was imple­ment­ed as intend­ed.

Results indi­cat­ed that imme­di­ate­ly after treat­ment — as well as 3 months lat­er — chil­dren in the HI group showed improved WM per­for­mance com­pared to LI chil­dren. Fur­ther­more, par­ent reports indi­cat­ed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in ADHD symp­toms, par­tic­u­lar­ly inat­ten­tive symp­toms; these reduc­tions remained evi­dent at 3 months. How­ev­er, no ben­e­fits in ADHD symp­toms were evi­dent in reports pro­vid­ed by chil­dren’s teach­ers. Giv­en the impor­tance of improv­ing atten­tion in the class­room, this was a sig­nif­i­cant lim­i­ta­tion.

A sub­se­quent study also used ran­dom assign­ment to HI vs. LI train­ing, and observed the impact on chil­dren’s behav­ior in a con­trolled class­room set­ting. Results indi­cat­ed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in off-task class­room behav­ior among chil­dren with ADHD who received HI train­ing. This par­tial­ly address­es con­cerns about fail­ure to find teacher report­ed ben­e­fits in oth­er stud­ies. Chil­dren also showed gains in non-trained mea­sures of WM.

Results from these stud­ies, along with sev­er­al oth­ers, sug­gest that Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing (the spe­cif­ic train­ing sys­tem used in these stud­ies was Cogmed Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing, i.e., CWMT) yields ben­e­fits in non-trained mea­sures of WM and reduc­tions in par­ent-report inat­ten­tive behav­ior. How­ev­er, no study has found ben­e­fits in teacher report­ed behav­ior and symp­toms.

Con­cerns about the evi­dence base for CWMT

A sig­nif­i­cant lim­i­ta­tion in the evi­dence-based for using CWMT to treat youth with ADHD is the absence of teacher report­ed ben­e­fits. In addi­tion, some researchers ques­tion whether the LI train­ing is an ade­quate con­trol con­di­tion. This is because although chil­dren in HI and LI train­ing com­plete the same num­ber of tri­als each ses­sion, the LI train­ing takes less time each ses­sion because it does not become more dif­fi­cult. Thus, the con­di­tions dif­fer in ways oth­er than whether dif­fi­cul­ty lev­el adjusts to match the child’s per­for­mance.

Some have also sug­gest­ed that par­ents of LI chil­dren may become aware that their child has been assigned to the con­trol group. If par­ent are not tru­ly ‘blind’ to con­di­tion, it could explain par­ent-report­ed ben­e­fits that have been found. For these rea­sons, some have sug­gest­ed that CWMT should be regard­ed as no more than a ‘pos­si­bly effi­ca­cious’ treat­ment for ADHD and not con­sid­ered a ‘first-line’ treat­ment like med­ica­tion and behav­ior ther­a­py.

Results from 2 recent tri­als

Two recent­ly pub­lished stud­ies pro­vide impor­tant new data on the effi­ca­cy of CWMT for ADHD.

The first [van Don­gen-Booms­ma et al., (2014). Work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing in young chil­dren with ADHD: A ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al] was con­duct­ed with 51 5–7‑year old chil­dren with ADHD in the Nether­lands. Sim­i­lar to the stud­ies sum­ma­rized above, chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to HI vs. LI train­ing. Train­ing con­sist­ed of 25 ses­sions of 15 min­utes 5 days a week for 5 weeks; this is the rec­om­mend­ed train­ing sched­ule for younger chil­dren. Train­ing was con­duct­ed in chil­dren’s home and super­vised by par­ents. Train­ing was con­duct­ed in chil­dren’s home and super­vised by par­ents.

A cer­ti­fied coach con­tact­ed par­ents each week to eval­u­ate the per­for­mance and moti­va­tion of the child using a stan­dard­ized ques­tion­naire. Nei­ther child, par­ents, or coach­es knew which con­di­tion the child had been assigned to. Because coach­es were kept blind to chil­dren’s con­di­tion, and thus did not receive detailed infor­ma­tion on how chil­dren were pro­gress­ing through the exer­cis­es, they were unable to pro­vide coach­ing sup­port to par­ents as is done in reg­u­lar clin­i­cal prac­tice.

Out­come mea­sures includ­ed neu­rocog­ni­tive assess­ments, par­ent and teacher reports of ADHD symp­toms, and a glob­al assess­ment of func­tion­ing made by study clin­i­cians. Results indi­cat­ed ben­e­fits of HI train­ing on only 1 of 25 out­come mea­sures, a mea­sure of ver­bal work­ing mem­o­ry. Impor­tant­ly, no train­ing relat­ed dif­fer­ences were found for par­ent, teacher, or clin­i­cian rat­ings. The authors con­clude that their find­ings cast “…doubt on the claims that CWMT is an effec­tive treat­ment in young chil­dren with ADHD.”

Study 2

In a sec­ond ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al [Chacko et al., (2013). A ran­dom­ized clin­i­cal tri­al of Cogmed Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing in school-age chil­dren with ADHD: A repli­ca­tion in a diverse sam­ple using a con­trol con­di­tion. The Jour­nal of Child Psy­chol­o­gy & Psy­chi­a­try, 55, 247–253] 85 7- to 11-year old-chil­dren with ADHD were assigned to HI or LI CWMT.

Train­ing con­sist­ed of 5 30–45 min­utes per week for 5 weeks; this is the typ­i­cal ses­sion length for chil­dren in this age range. Addi­tion­al tri­als were added to LI train­ing ses­sions as need­ed so that the length of LI and HI train­ing ses­sions were more com­pa­ra­ble. Also unlike the pri­or study, coach­es had com­plete access to chil­dren’s train­ing data so that they could over­see par­ents as is done in stan­dard clin­i­cal prac­tice using CWMT. Out­come mea­sures includ­ed par­ent and teacher rat­ings of ADHD symp­toms, stan­dard­ized assess­ments of work­ing mem­o­ry, com­put­er­ized assess­ments of atten­tion, and aca­d­e­m­ic achieve­ment test­ing.

As report­ed pri­or stud­ies, chil­dren receiv­ing active train­ing showed sig­nif­i­cant gains in work­ing mem­o­ry com­pared to con­trol chil­dren. This was true for both visuo-spa­tial and ver­bal work­ing mem­o­ry.

How­ev­er, com­put­er­ized tests of atten­tion showed no sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the groups. The same was true for par­ent and teacher rat­ings of ADHD symp­toms as well as for mea­sures of aca­d­e­m­ic achieve­ment.

Based on these large­ly neg­a­tive results, the authors con­clude that CWMT should not be used as a treat­ment for ADHD.

Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions

Results from these 2 ran­dom­ized-con­trolled tri­als do not sup­port CWMT as a first-line treat­ment for ADHD. In both stud­ies, there was evi­dence that train­ing pro­duced gains in some non-trained mea­sures of work­ing mem­o­ry. How­ev­er, improve­ments in par­ent or teacher rat­ings of behav­ior were absent. Giv­en the adverse impact of core ADHD symp­toms on aca­d­e­m­ic and behav­ioral func­tion­ing, this is a sig­nif­i­cant lim­i­ta­tion.

In the first study, one could argue that coach­es could not use detailed records of chil­dren’s train­ing per­for­mance to guide their coach­ing calls with par­ents, which may have under­mined the train­ing effec­tive­ness. This was not true of the sec­ond study where coach­ing super­vi­sion was pro­vid­ed in the stan­dard man­ner. This sec­ond study was also the largest tri­al of CWMT for ADHD con­duct­ed to date and the sam­ple size was suf­fi­cient to detect mean­ing­ful treat­ment effects if they were there.

What can we con­clude from this work? Despite promis­ing ini­tial reports sug­gest­ing that CWMT is a poten­tial­ly effec­tive treat­ment for ADHD, these stud­ies sig­nif­i­cant­ly under­cut this con­clu­sion. This does not mean that there is no util­i­ty to CWMT, how­ev­er, par­tic­u­lar­ly for indi­vid­u­als with demon­strat­ed work­ing mem­o­ry deficits. If one’s treat­ment goal is to enhance work­ing mem­o­ry, CWMT may have real val­ue. If the goal is to bring ADHD symp­toms under con­trol, how­ev­er, these find­ings indi­cate that for most chil­dren with ADHD, CWMT would not cur­rent­ly be con­sid­ered a rea­son­able sub­sti­tute for med­ica­tion and/or behav­ior ther­a­py.

One final com­ment. I think it is impor­tant to note that many clin­i­cians are using CWMT with chil­dren who have ADHD and many have report­ed that they are obtain­ing good results. A num­ber of these are clin­i­cians that I know and respect, and it is dif­fi­cult to rec­on­cile the neg­a­tive results report­ed here with out­comes that are report­ed by many clin­i­cians who use Cogmed in their prac­tice. This is an exam­ple of where research find­ings dif­fer from clin­i­cal impres­sions, and I don’t think it is pos­si­ble to con­clude with com­plete cer­tain­ty that one is right and the oth­er is wrong. How­ev­er, if one looks to the research to make deci­sions about treat­ments to rec­om­mend for chil­dren with ADHD, rou­tine­ly rec­om­mend­ing Cogmed would be incon­sis­tent with the cur­rent research base in my view.

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.

Pre­vi­ous arti­cles by Dr. Rabin­er:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

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…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

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