Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Meta-analysis finds sustained benefits of neurofeedback for kids with ADHD

Image result for neurofeedback adhd kids___

In neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for ADHD, indi­vid­u­als learn to alter their typ­i­cal pat­tern of brain­wave activ­i­ty, i.e., EEG activ­i­ty, to one that is con­sis­tent with a focused and 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, e.g., keep­ing the smile on a smi­ley face keep­ing a video play­ing, depends on their main­tain­ing an EEG state that reflects focused atten­tion.

Over time, most indi­vid­u­als bet­ter at this. Sup­port­ers of neu­ro­feed­back argue that learn­ing to alter EEG activ­i­ty and focus bet­ter dur­ing train­ing even­tu­al­ly gen­er­al­izes to real-world tasks that require strong atten­tion skills, e.g., read­ing, home­work, etc.

Although many experts remain skep­ti­cal of this approach, despite numer­ous sup­port­ive stud­ies, a recent­ly pub­lished meta-analy­sis of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment pro­vides impor­tant new sup­port.

Results from 10 dif­fer­ent stud­ies were pooled for this meta-analy­sis. All were ran­dom­ized-con­trolled tri­als in which neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment was com­pared to a con­trol con­di­tion. Only stud­ies that used neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment pro­to­cols for which pri­or empir­i­cal sup­port was avail­able were includ­ed.

The Study:

Sus­tained effects of neu­ro­feed­back in ADHD: A sys­tem­at­ic review and meta-analy­sis (Euro­pean Jour­nal of Child and Ado­les­cent Psy­chi­a­try). From the abstract:

  • Neu­ro­feed­back (NF) has gained increas­ing inter­est in the treat­ment of atten­tion-deficit/hy­per­ac­tiv­i­ty dis­or­der (ADHD). Giv­en learn­ing prin­ci­ples under­lie NF, last­ing clin­i­cal treat­ment effects may be expect­ed. This sys­tem­at­ic review and meta-analy­sis address­es the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of neu­ro­feed­back and con­trol treat­ment effects by con­sid­er­ing ran­dom­ized con­trolled stud­ies that con­duct­ed fol­low-up (FU; 2–12 months) assess­ments among chil­dren with ADHD … Com­pared to non-active con­trol treat­ments, NF appears to have more durable treat­ment effects, for at least 6 months fol­low­ing treat­ment. More stud­ies are need­ed for a prop­er­ly pow­ered com­par­i­son of fol­low-up effects between NF and active treat­ments and to fur­ther con­trol for non-spe­cif­ic effects.

Par­tic­i­pants’ ages var­ied but most stud­ies includ­ed chil­dren between 8 and 12. Across the 10 stud­ies, 256 par­tic­i­pants received neu­ro­feed­back and 250 were ran­dom­ized to a con­trol con­di­tion.

Some stud­ies com­pared neu­ro­feed­back to an active con­trol, i.e., one known to pos­i­tive­ly impact ADHD symp­toms such as med­ica­tion treat­ment. In stud­ies with non-active con­trols, chil­dren in the con­trol con­di­tion received either no treat­ment or one with­out estab­lished effi­ca­cy.

Chil­dren treat­ed with neu­ro­feed­back received between 25 and 40 train­ing ses­sions that ranged from 30 to 5o min­utes; no addi­tion­al train­ing was pro­vid­ed dur­ing the fol­low-up peri­od. Chil­dren receiv­ing med­ica­tion typ­i­cal­ly con­tin­ued on it dur­ing fol­low-up.

All stud­ies col­lect­ed par­ent rat­ings of ADHD symp­toms at base­line, imme­di­ate­ly after neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment end­ed (post-test), and between 2–12 months lat­er (fol­low-up).

The Findings:

From base­line to post-test, there was a sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tion in par­ents’ rat­ing of atten­tion prob­lems for chil­dren receiv­ing neu­ro­feed­back; the mag­ni­tude of the reduc­tion cor­re­spond­ed to a ‘medi­um’ effect size. At fol­low-up, this reduc­tion per­sist­ed and increased in mag­ni­tude to what would be char­ac­ter­ized as a large effect.

For chil­dren in an ‘active’ con­trol group, e.g., med­ica­tion, large reduc­tions in inat­ten­tive symp­toms between base­line to post-test were found. These reduc­tions were larg­er than those for neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment.

Ben­e­fits remained sta­ble across the fol­low-up peri­od but did not increase. Thus, at fol­low-up, which ranged from 2–12 months after neu­ro­feed­back end­ed, symp­tom reduc­tions for the neu­ro­feed­back and active con­trol groups no longer dif­fered. Sim­i­lar results were found for hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms.

Chil­dren in non-active con­trol groups showed a small reduc­tion in inat­ten­tive symp­toms at post-test that was no longer evi­dent at fol­low-up. There were no reduc­tions at either time point for hyper­ac­tive impul­sive symp­toms.

Summary and implications:

The impor­tant find­ings from this meta-analy­sis of 10 ran­dom­ized-con­trolled stud­ies of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for chil­dren with ADHD are:

  1. Neu­ro­feed­back yields sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in par­ent rat­ings of inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms.
  2. These reduc­tions per­sist for up to 2–12 months after neu­ro­feed­back ends.
  3. Although med­ica­tion has a larg­er ini­tial effect, symp­tom reduc­tions result­ing from neu­ro­feed­back and med­ica­tion may be com­pa­ra­ble over a more extend­ed time peri­od.

What does this mean for par­ents con­sid­er­ing neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment for their child?

First, this pro­vides a strong basis to expect ben­e­fits if treat­ment is well-admin­is­tered and an estab­lished pro­to­col is used.

Sec­ond, while treat­ment is long (25–40 ses­sion) — and can be expen­sive — ben­e­fits are like­ly to per­sist after treat­ment ends.

Third, because med­ica­tion yields larg­er symp­tom reduc­tions in the short-term, it will be espe­cial­ly impor­tant to con­sid­er when symp­toms are pro­nounced and imme­di­ate symp­tom reduc­tion is essen­tial.

A few impor­tant caveats. First, although neu­ro­feed­back ben­e­fits per­sist­ed through the fol­low-up peri­od, whether they extend beyond the time frames used in these stud­ies is unknown.

Sec­ond, while par­ent rat­ings of chil­dren’s symp­toms are an impor­tant out­come mea­sure, oth­er impor­tant mea­sures were not includ­ed. For instance, teacher reports were not includ­ed, nor were mea­sures of aca­d­e­m­ic or social func­tion­ing.

One should not assume that reduc­tion in core ADHD symp­toms nec­es­sar­i­ly trans­lates into improve­ment in these impor­tant func­tion­al out­comes. This is a lim­i­ta­tion of many stud­ies in the ADHD field.

Final­ly, as with any treat­ment, not all chil­dren receiv­ing neu­ro­feed­back will ben­e­fit. One should not assume that because neu­ro­feed­back helps chil­dren with ADHD, on aver­age, it will nec­es­sar­i­ly help any indi­vid­ual child. This is also true for med­ica­tion, although in most cas­es the impact of med­ica­tion can be deter­mined more quick­ly.

An impor­tant ques­tion is whether find­ings from this study pro­vide a strong basis for con­clud­ing that neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment is effec­tive for ADHD.

Some sci­en­tists would argue that they do not. The rea­son is that although these were ran­dom­ized-con­trolled tri­als, par­ents were aware that their child was receiv­ing neu­ro­feed­back and this may have influ­enced their rat­ings.

For these sci­en­tists, con­clu­sive proof requires a ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al in which some chil­dren receive real neu­ro­feed­back while oth­ers receive ‘sham’ feed­back, i.e., feed­back that is not tied to their actu­al EEG activ­i­ty.

This would cor­re­spond to receiv­ing a place­bo pill in a med­ica­tion tri­al. Only through such a design could par­ents and oth­er raters remain ‘blind’ to treat­ment and thus pro­vide rat­ings not biased by expectan­cy effects.

This type of study is nec­es­sary to con­clude that chil­dren improve because of the actu­al feed­back they receive on their EEG state, and not because of oth­er aspects of treat­ment that accom­pa­ny this.

– 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 the Atten­tion Research Update, an online newslet­ter that helps par­ents, pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors keep up with the lat­est research on ADHD.

Related articles:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

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

Tags: , , , , , ,

Search in our Archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

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.

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