Table 2.
Summary of neurofeedback treatment studies for ADHD
| NF protocol | Study | Year | Total N (NF, control) | Age range | Experimental design | Control condition | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active control studies | |||||||
| θ/β | Bakhshayesh et al. [69] | 2011 | 35 (18,17) | 6-14 years | 1, 2 | EMG biofeedback | NF > EMG on IN, CPT RT, and concentration |
| θ/β | Steiner et al. [72] | 2011 | 41 (13, 13 AT, 15) | 11-13 years | 1, 6 | Attention training (AT), WLC | Both txs result in reduced ADHD sxs. Feasible in school setting |
| θ/β and SCP | Gevensleben et al. [70] | 2009 | 94 (59, 35) | 9-12 years | 1, 5, 6 | Computerized attention training (AT) | NF = larger tx change than AT. NF responders 52 %, AT responders 29 % |
| reanalysis | Gevensleben et al. [67] | 2009b | 72 (46, 26) | 9-12 years | 1,5,6 | NF = reduced central and parietal theta activity. Different EEG mechanisms affected by NF protocol | |
| reanalysis | Gevensleben et al. [77] | 2010 | 61 (38, 23) | 9-12 years | 1,5,7 | At 6-mo FU, improvement maintained for both NF and AT groups | |
| reanalysis | Wangler et al. [74] | 2011 | 84 (56, 28) | 9-12 years | 1,5 | SCP training results in larger CNV amplitude compared to AT, but no difference in cognitive performance | |
| θ/β or SCP | Leins et al. [68] | 2007 | 38 (19, 19) | 8-13 years | 1,2,7 | SCP vs θ/β ratio NF | Both groups improved in ADHD behavior, IQ, and cortical regulation. Effects maintained at 6-mo FU |
| SCP | Drechsler et al. [71] | 2007 | 30 (17, 13) | 9-13 years | 3 | Group therapy (GT) | NF > GT on IN; all cognitive results NS. Parent support signif associated with outcome |
| reanalysis | Doehnert et al. [73] | 2008 | 26 (14, 12) | 9-12 years | 3 | NF = GT in resting EEG, CNV amp, cognitive performance. NF = incr in parietal alpha associated with improved impulsivity | |
| Sham/Placebo-controlled studies | |||||||
| θ/β | Arnold et al. [64] | 2012 | 39 (26, 13) | 6-12 years | 1,2 | Sham NF | Both groups improved, no signif differences betw active and sham NF |
| θ/β | Lansbergen et al. [24] | 2011 | 14 (8, 6) | 8-15 years | 1,2,4 | Sham NF | Both groups improved, no signif. differences betw active and sham NF |
| θ/β | Logemann et al. [60] | 2010 | 26 (14, 13) | College age | 1,2,4 | Sham NF | Both groups improved, no signif. differences betw active and sham NF |
| θ/β | Perreau-Linck et al. [65] | 2010 | 9 (5, 4) | 8-13 years | 1,2,6 | Sham NF | Both groups improved, neither group improved more than the other |
| Wait-list control studies | |||||||
| θ/β | Levesque et al. [62] | 2006 | 20 (15, 5) | 8-12 years | 1,6 | WLC | NF improved IN, cognitive performance, functional magnetic resonance activation. WLC no change |
| SCP | Heinrich et al. [61] | 2004 | 22 (13, 9) | 7-13 years | 1 | WLC | NF > WLC on ADHD behaviors, CPT impulsivity errors, incr CNV amp |
| θ/β | Linden et al. [63] | 1996 | 18 (9, 9) | 5-15 years | 1 | WLC | NF = WLC on ADHD behaviors, IQ |
θ/β = theta/beta (including SMR) ratio; 1 = randomized; 2 = singe/double blind; 3 = incomplete randomization; 4 = individualized NF; 5 = multi-site; 6 = no direct or inappropriate statistical comparison between groups; 7 = 6-month follow-up; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; btw = between; CNV = contingent negative variation; CPT = continuous performance test; FU = follow-up; impr = improved; IN = inattentive symptoms; incr = increased; IQ = intelligence; NF = neurofeedback; NS = not significant; RT = reaction time; SCP = slow cortical potential; signif = significant; SMR = sensorimotor rhythm; sxs = symptoms; txs = treatment; WLC = wait-list control