ADHD research
The
following recent article extracts (presented in date order from
2009-2000) are
all from peer-reviewed scientific research journals:
Arns et al (2009): “Efficacy
of Neurofeedback Treatment in ADHD: the Effects of Inattention,
Impulsivity and
Hyperactivity: a Meta-Analysis”.
The
authors collected research on neurofeedback treatment for ADHD and
performed a
meta-analysis. The authors conclude that neurofeedback treatment for
ADHD can
be considered “efficacious and specific” with a large effect size for
inattention and impulsivity and medium effect size for hyperactivity.
Gevensleben et al.
(2009a):
“Is neurofeedback an efficacious treatment for ADHD? A randomised
controlled
clinical trial”.
The
authors report the clinical efficacy of neurofeedback in children with
ADHD;
neurofeedback training was found to be superior to a computerised
attention
skills training concerning the reduction of ADHD symptomatology.
Gevensleben et al.
(2009b):
“Distinct EEG effects related to neurofeedback training in children
with adhd:
A randomized controlled trial”.
The
authors report that differential EEG patterns for neurofeedback
training
provide further evidence that distinct neuronal mechanisms may
contribute to
similar behavioral improvements in children with ADHD.
Cannon et al (2009):
“Differentiating a network of executive attention: LORETA neurofeedback
in
anterior cingulate and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices”.
It
was found that LORETA neurofeedback appeared to enhance the functioning
and
strengthening of networks of cortical units physiologically related to
each
region of training.
Holnthaner (2008):
“Neurofeedback in ADHD/ADD treatment” [Slovene].
The
author reviews research that shows that during the procedure subjects
improve
the core symptoms of ADHD such as the inattention, hyperactivity, and
impulsivity.
Leins et al (2006):
“Neurofeedback for children with ADHD: A comparison of SCP- and
Theta/Beta-Protocols” [German].
The
authors found that neurofeedback groups were able to voluntarily
regulate
cortical activity, with the extent of learned self-regulation depending
on task
and condition. Neurofeedback groups improved in attention and IQ.
Parents and
teachers reported significant behavioral and cognitive improvements.
Clinical
effects for the neurofeedback groups remained stable six months after
training.
Beauregard &
Levesque (2006): “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of
the Effects of Neurofeedback Training on the Neural Bases of Selective
Attention and Response Inhibition in Children with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder”.
The
results suggest that neurofeedback training has the capacity to
functionally
normalize the brain systems mediating selective attention and response
inhibition in AD/HD children.
Jacobs (2005):
“Neurofeedback treatment of two children with learning, attention,
mood,
social, and developmental deficits”.
Neurofeedback
was a successful treatment for two multi-symptomatic and diagnosed
boys, whose
improvements surpassed the gains made with previous therapies. The
advantages
of neurofeedback include the relative absence of observable adverse
effects,
the lack of reliance on medication with its possible side effects and
noncompliance, and the possibility of long-term gains without continued
intervention.
Li & Yu-Feng (2005): “EEG Biofeedback
treatment on ADHD Children with comorbid tic disorder” [Chinese].
EEG feedback treatment was found to be
effective in children with ADHD and comorbid tic disorder.
Fox et al (2005):
“Neurofeedback: An alternative and efficacious treatment for attention
deficit
hyperactivity disorder”.
The
article illustrates current treatment modalities, compares them to
neurofeedback, and presents the benefits of utilizing neurofeedback
treatment
to control and potentially alleviate the symptoms of ADHD.
Foks (2005):
“Neurofeedback training as an educational intervention in a school
setting: How
the regulation of arousal states can lead to improved attention and
behaviour
in children with special needs”.
Results
indicate that neurofeedback may make an important impact on emotions
and affect
of the special educational needs individual, leading to improved
behaviour and
improved attentional capability; quality time spent on a no-failure
task of any
kind on a one-to-one basis may be beneficial to children with special
educational needs, affecting their personal belief system and behaviour.
Butnik (2005):
“Neurofeedback in Adolescents and Adults With Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity
Disorder”.
Individuals
who complete a course of training sessions often show reduced primary
ADHD
symptoms. Research has shown that neurofeedback outcomes compare
favorably to
those of stimulant medication.
Holtmann et al
(2004):
“Neurofeedback for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder
(ADHD) in childhood and adolescence” [German].
In
three controlled studies short-term effects of feedback matched those
of
stimulant treatment. Neurofeedback lead to significant improvement of
attention,
impulsivity and hyperactivity, without adversive side effects.
Additionally,
there was a persistent amelioration of EEG parameters, while stimulants
did not
lead to a comparable normalization.
Egner & Gruzelier
(2004):
“EEG Biofeedback of low beta band components: Frequency-specific
effects on
variables of attention and event-related brain potentials”.
Neurofeedback
training of SMR and beta1 band components led to significant and
protocol-specific effects in healthy subjects. The data can be
interpreted as
indicating a general attention-enhancing effect of SMR training, and an
arousal-enhancing effect of beta1 training.
Fuchs et al (2003):
“Neurofeedback treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
in
children: A comparison with methylphenidate”.
Findings
suggest that neurofeedback was efficient in improving some of the
behavioral
concomitants of ADHD in children whose parents favored a
nonpharmacological
treatment.
Monastra et al
(2002):
“The effects of stimulant therapy, EEG biofeedback, and parenting style
on the
primary symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder”.
Only
participants who had received EEG biofeedback sustained the significant
improvements made on the Test of Variables of Attention and the
Attention
Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale when tested without Ritalin. The
results of
a Quantitative Electroencephalographic Scanning Process revealed
significant
reduction in cortical slowing only in patients who had received EEG
biofeedback. Behavioral measures indicated that parenting style exerted
a
significant moderating effect on the expression of behavioral symptoms
at home
but not at school.
Jiang et al (2002): “EEG
biofeedback on cognitive function of children with ADHD” [Chinese].
The
results show that after the biofeedback treatment, the ADHD children
improved
in short-term memory, concentration, category performance, information
processing speed, and reduced impulsiveness. The study concludes that
EEG
feedback can improve cognitive function of children with ADHD.
Keller (2001):
“Neurofeedback Therapy of Attention Deficits in Patients with Traumatic
Brain
Injury”.
Patients
with traumatic brain injuries who received Neurofeedback Therapy
improved
significantly more in the attention tests than control patients.
Tinius & Tinius
(2000):
“Changes after EEG biofeedback and cognitive retraining in adults with
mild
traumatic brain injury and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”.
The
results found significant improvement on full scale attention and full
scale
response accuracy of a continuous performance task in the mild
traumatic brain
injury (mTBI) and ADHD groups compared to the control group. A self
report
showed a significant decline in symptoms in the mTBI and ADHD groups
compared
to the control group. The treatment model used in this study showed
significant
improvement in the sustained attention of individuals diagnosed with
mTBI and
ADHD after twenty treatment sessions.
Kaiser & Othmer
(2000):
“Effect of neurofeedback on variables of attention in a large
multi-center
trial”.
Results
indicated that neurofeedback training produced significant improvement
in
attentiveness, impulse control, and response variability. Significant
clinical
improvement in one or more measures was seen in 85% of those subjects
with
moderate pre-training deficits. It is concluded that neurofeedback
training is
effective in remediating attentional dysfunction.
Further Reading
Kirk (2007):
“Neurofeedback protocols for subtypes of attention
deficit/hyperactivity
disorder”. In Evans (Ed). (2007) Handbook of neurofeedback: Dynamics
and
clinical applications. Binghamton, NY, US: The Haworth Medical
Press/The
Haworth Press.
This chapter will
review attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), touching on its
historical definitions and treatments; differential diagnoses and
comorbidities; current interventions and treatments for ADHD;
populations for
whom neurofeedback is appropriate; the historical development of
neurofeedback
protocols for ADHD; the "basic three" neurofeedback protocols that
are supported by published controlled, group studies; neurofeedback
protocol
modifications developed from the "basic three"; the use of
quantitative EEG (QEEG); the ADHD subtypes identified by neuroimaging;
and some
clinical issues related to the frequency and length of neurofeedback
training
for ADHD.
Thompson (2003):
“Complementary Therapeutic Interventions: Neurofeedback, Metacognition,
and
Nutrition for Long-Term Improvement in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder”. In Fine & Kotkin (Eds) Therapist's guide to learning and
attention disorder. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
What parents want for
their children, and what adults with attentional problems want for
themselves,
is the ability to manage their symptoms in a positive way for long-term
success. This chapter introduces three interventions: neurofeedback,
cognitive
strategies, and nutritional considerations, which have the potential
for making
a difference, not just for 4 to 8 hours, but for a lifetime. All three
approaches are without negative side effects and are based on learning.
Lubar (2003):
“Neurofeedback for the management of attention deficit disorders”. In
Schwartz
& Andrasik (Eds) Biofeedback: A practitioner's guide (3rd ed.). New
York,
NY, US: Guilford Press.
In
this chapter, the author describes an adjunctive procedure for
treatment and
long-term management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder called
neurofeedback. The author discusses the rationale for neurofeedback,
including
the criteria for an effective intervention with specific individuals.
The
author also describes the results from his clinic, his university-based
research, and those of others.
Lubar & Lubar (1999): “Neurofeedback
assessment and treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorders”. In
Evans & Abarbanel
(Eds) Introduction to quantitative EEG and neurofeedback. San Diego,
CA, US:
Academic Press.
This
chapter considers the use of neurofeedback in the assessment and
treatment of
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADD/ADHD). The authors
discuss
quantitative EEG and topographic brain mapping and SPECT findings that
indicate
that ADD/ADHD involves hypoactivation of the prefrontal lobes and
medial
central cortex, particularly during an intellectual or academic stress
task.
They suggest that, if different subtypes of ADD/ADHD can also be
characterized
as neurologically distinct, it is important to tailor neurofeedback
treatment
for the neurology presented by the subtype.