Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Perspective: Neurofeedback treatment for ADHD is gaining strong support

neurofeedbackNeu­ro­feed­back — also known as EEG Biofeed­back — is an ADHD treat­ment in which indi­vid­u­als learn to alter their typ­i­cal EEG pat­tern to one that is con­sis­tent with a focused, atten­tive state. This is 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 or keep­ing a video play­ing, is con­tin­gent on main­tain­ing an EEG state con­sis­tent with focused atten­tion. Neu­ro­feed­back pro­po­nents argue that this abil­i­ty gen­er­al­izes to real world sit­u­a­tions and results in bet­ter atten­tion dur­ing aca­d­e­m­ic and relat­ed tasks.

Although neu­ro­feed­back for ADHD has been con­tro­ver­sial for many years, research sup­port for this treat­ment is grow­ing. In fact, in Octo­ber, 2012 the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Pedi­atrics rat­ed neu­ro­feed­back as a Lev­el 1 “Best Sup­port” Inter­ven­tion for ADHD; this is the high­est pos­si­ble rat­ing and at the same lev­el as med­ica­tion treat­ment and behav­ior ther­a­py — you can find the rat­ings here. My sense, how­ev­er, is that many sci­en­tists who study ADHD would regard this rat­ing as pre­ma­ture based on cur­rent evi­dence.

How do the ben­e­fits of neu­ro­feed­back for ADHD com­pare to those pro­vid­ed by stim­u­lant med­ica­tion? Med­ica­tion remains the most wide­ly used ADHD inter­ven­tion and exam­in­ing this ques­tion is thus impor­tant. In a pri­or issue of Atten­tion Research Update I reviewed a study com­par­ing neu­ro­feed­back to med­ica­tion treat­ment. Both treat­ments yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant ben­e­fits and did not dif­fer sig­nif­i­cant­ly from one anoth­er.

An impor­tant lim­i­ta­tion of this study, how­ev­er, was that chil­dren were not ran­dom­ly assigned to med­ica­tion or neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment; instead, par­ents select­ed the option they pre­ferred for their child. This lim­its the con­clu­sions that can be drawn in sev­er­al impor­tant ways. First, with­out ran­dom assign­ment, pre­ex­ist­ing dif­fer­ences between chil­dren whose par­ents pre­ferred neu­ro­feed­back and those who pre­ferred med­ica­tion may have influ­enced the find­ings. Sec­ond, with­out ran­dom assign­ment one can­not deter­mine whether neu­ro­feed­back is effec­tive for chil­dren with ADHD over­all, or only for those chil­dren whose par­ents select it.

New Research Com­par­ing Med­ica­tion to Neu­ro­feed­back

Two recent­ly pub­lished stud­ies addressed this lim­i­ta­tion by ran­dom­ly assign­ing chil­dren with ADHD to either med­ica­tion or neu­ro­feed­back con­di­tions.

Study 1 — The first study [Duric et al., (2012). Neu­ro­feed­back for the treat­ment of chil­dren and ado­les­cents with ADHD: A ran­dom­ized and con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­al using parental reports. BMC Psy­chi­a­try, 12, 107] was con­duct­ed with 91 6 to 18 year olds (mean age of 10.5) in Nor­way. Par­tic­i­pants were ran­dom­ly assigned to receive neu­ro­feed­back, stim­u­lant med­ica­tion, or both.

Neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment was con­duct­ed in 3 40 minute ses­sion per week over 10 weeks, i.e., 30 ses­sions total. The pri­ma­ry focus was to decrease theta activ­i­ty and increas­ing beta activ­i­ty. This is con­sis­tent with numer­ous find­ings that a high theta/beta ratio is a reli­ably found in indi­vid­u­als with ADHD; see a very inter­est­ing and impor­tant study of this issue.

Chil­dren in the med­ica­tion group received treat­ment with methylphenidate, the gener­ic form of Rital­in. Med­ica­tion was pro­vid­ed 2X/day at a dose of 1 mg per kg.

Chil­dren in the com­bined group received both treat­ments.

Results — Par­ents com­plet­ing rat­ings of core ADHD symp­toms before treat­ment began and 1 week after neu­ro­feed­back had been com­plet­ed. Chil­dren in all groups — neu­ro­feed­back, med­ica­tion, and com­bined — were report­ed to show sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms. Although between group dif­fer­ences between were not sig­nif­i­cant, the effect on inat­ten­tive symp­toms appeared largest for the neu­ro­feed­back only group. An unex­pect­ed find­ing was that for all groups, the impact on hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms was con­sis­tent­ly larg­er than for inat­ten­tive symp­toms.

Study 2 — A sec­ond study pub­lished ear­li­er this year [Meisel et al., (2014). Neu­ro­feed­back and stan­dard­ized phar­ma­co­log­i­cal inter­ven­tion in ADHD: A ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al with six-month fol­low up. Bio­log­i­cal Psy­chol­o­gy, 95, 116–125) extends this work by obtain­ing feed­back from teach­ers in addi­tion to par­ents — includ­ing assess­ments of edu­ca­tion­al per­for­mance — as well as 2- and 6‑month fol­low up data.

Par­tic­i­pants were 23 7–14 year-old chil­dren with ADHD — 11 boys and 12 girls; the study was con­duct­ed in Spain. Par­tic­i­pants were ran­dom­ly assigned to neu­ro­feed­back or med­ica­tion ther­a­py. Neu­ro­feed­back con­sist­ed of 40 ses­sions (approx­i­mate­ly 30 minutes/session) pro­vid­ed over 20 weeks. As above, treat­ment focused on sup­press­ing theta activ­i­ty and enhanc­ing beta activ­i­ty.

Med­ica­tion treat­ment was with methylphenidate at a dose of 1 mg per kg fol­low­ing Span­ish nation­al treat­ment guide­lines for ADHD. Chil­dren receiv­ing med­ica­tion con­tin­ued to receive it across the 6‑month fol­low up peri­od.

Data was obtained pre-treat­ment, imme­di­ate­ly after neu­ro­feed­back end­ed, and again 2 and 6 months lat­er. Moth­ers and fathers com­plet­ed rat­ings of core ADHD symp­toms, oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior, and func­tion­al impair­ment. Teach­ers also rat­ed ADHD symp­toms, oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior, and chil­dren’s per­for­mance in read­ing, writ­ing, math, and oral expres­sion.

Results — Imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment, mater­nal rat­ings for both groups indi­cat­ed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms; declines in atten­tion dif­fi­cul­ties were more pro­nounced and dif­fer­ences between groups were not sig­nif­i­cant. Sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior and reduc­tions in over­all func­tion­al impair­ment were also report­ed. These improve­ments were gen­er­al­ly main­tained at the 2- and 6‑month fol­low up.

Reports from fathers were less con­sis­tent­ly pos­i­tive. For neu­ro­feed­back, rat­ings of inat­ten­tive symp­toms showed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions at each peri­od but were of less­er mag­ni­tude than what moth­ers report­ed. Declines in hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms and oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior were not sig­nif­i­cant. Results for the med­ica­tion group were sim­i­lar; the only dif­fer­ence was that fathers report­ed low­er oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior at 6 months, a reduc­tion that was not evi­dent in the neu­ro­feed­back group.

Results from teach­ers were espe­cial­ly inter­est­ing. For the neu­ro­feed­back group, sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive symp­toms were only mar­gin­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant at the imme­di­ate post-test, but were both sig­nif­i­cant and of large mag­ni­tude at the 2- and 6‑month fol­low ups. The same was true for hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms and oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior. At post-test, teach­ers also report­ed sig­nif­i­cant gains in all aca­d­e­m­ic areas, except for math which was mar­gin­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant. These gains gen­er­al­ly per­sist­ed across the 6‑month fol­low up.

For the med­ica­tion group, sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions were also report­ed for core ADHD symp­toms and oppo­si­tion­al behav­ior. The mag­ni­tude of these improve­ments tend­ed to be larg­er than for the neu­ro­feed­back group, but not sig­nif­i­cant­ly so. How­ev­er, no improve­ments were evi­dent for any aca­d­e­m­ic area at any time point.

Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions

Across both stud­ies, neu­ro­feed­back and stim­u­lant med­ica­tion treat­ment yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant and gen­er­al­ly con­sis­tent ben­e­fits for chil­dren with ADHD. In con­trast to pri­or stud­ies com­par­ing neu­ro­feed­back and med­ica­tion, both employed ran­dom assign­ment. The sec­ond study had sev­er­al addi­tion­al strengths includ­ing col­lect­ing data from mul­ti­ple infor­mants — includ­ing teach­ers — and fol­low­ing chil­dren up to 6 months after neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment end­ed. It is thus espe­cial­ly promis­ing that ben­e­fits evi­dent for neu­ro­feed­back when treat­ment first end­ed were gen­er­al­ly retained over this peri­od. Med­ica­tion relat­ed gains also per­sist­ed, which is not sur­pris­ing giv­en that chil­dren con­tin­ued on med­ica­tion.

Both stud­ies have lim­i­ta­tions that need to be rec­og­nized. The sam­ple sizes were small which makes find­ing sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences between treat­ments more dif­fi­cult. Nei­ther study was con­duct­ed in the US and one must be cau­tious about assum­ing the find­ings would apply to US chil­dren. How­ev­er, there is no rea­son I know of why a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of find­ings would be expect­ed here.

Obvi­ous­ly, par­ents were not blind to their child’s treat­ment; in the sec­ond study, there is no indi­ca­tion that teach­ers were kept ‘blind’. The inclu­sion of data from ‘blind’ observers and/or objec­tive mea­sures of atten­tion that are less sus­cep­ti­ble to expectan­cy effects would have made for a stronger study. Appar­ent­ly, objec­tive assess­ments were col­lect­ed in study 2 and will be pub­lished sep­a­rate­ly; I will be eager to learn what was found.

No men­tion is made in either study as to whether chil­dren actu­al­ly showed improve­ment in pro­duc­ing and main­tain­ing the EEG states that were tar­get­ed in train­ing. This, as well as the absence of a ‘sham’ feed­back con­di­tion makes it impos­si­ble to con­clude that it was feed­back on EEG states, as opposed to non-spe­cif­ic fac­tors linked to neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment (e.g., ther­a­pist atten­tion) that are respon­si­ble for the gains.

I would also note that in both stud­ies, chil­dren received a stan­dard med­ica­tion dose based on body weight rather than deter­min­ing the opti­mal dose for each child via a titra­tion tri­al. Stan­dard dos­ing is not the best way to opti­mize med­ica­tion ben­e­fits, and gains may have been greater if titra­tion pro­ce­dures were employed.

These lim­i­ta­tions not with­stand­ing, results from these stud­ies sug­gest that the ben­e­fits of neu­ro­feed­back for ADHD may approx­i­mate those pro­vid­ed by stim­u­lant med­ica­tion. Study 2 also sug­gests that neu­ro­feed­back may pro­duce aca­d­e­m­ic gains that med­ica­tion does not. Thus, while nei­ther study is per­fect (then again, no sin­gle study ever is) both point towards the val­ue of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for many 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.

To learn more:

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…

RSS Feed

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