Search

Improving neurocognitive functions through remote interventions has been a promising approach to developing new treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Remote neurocognitive interventions may address the shortcomings of the current prevailing pharmacological therapies for AD/HD, e.g., side effects and access barriers. Here we review the current options for remote neurocognitive interventions to reduce AD/HD symptoms, including cognitive training, EEG neurofeedback training, transcranial electrical stimulation, and external cranial nerve stimulation. We begin with an overview of the neurocognitive deficits in AD/HD to identify the targets for developing interventions. The role of neuroplasticity in each intervention is then highlighted due to its essential role in facilitating neuropsychological adaptations. Following this, each intervention type is discussed in terms of the critical details of the intervention protocols, the role of neuroplasticity, and the available evidence. Finally, we offer suggestions for future directions in terms of optimizing the existing intervention protocols and developing novel protocols., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We examined psychiatric comorbidities moderation of a 2-site double-blind randomized clinical trial of theta/beta-ratio (TBR) neurofeedback (NF) for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Seven-to-ten-year-olds with ADHD received either NF (n = 84) or Control (n = 58) for 38 treatments. Outcome was change in parent-/teacher-rated inattention from baseline to end-of-treatment (acute effect), and 13-month-follow-up. Seventy percent had at least one comorbidity: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) (50%), specific phobias (27%), generalized anxiety (23%), separation anxiety (16%). Comorbidities were grouped into anxiety alone (20%), ODD alone (23%), neither (30%), or both (27%). Comorbidity (p = 0.043) moderated acute effect; those with anxiety-alone responded better to Control than to TBR NF (d = - 0.79, CI - 1.55- - 0.04), and the other groups showed a slightly better response to TBR NF than to Control (d = 0.22 ~ 0.31, CI - 0.3-0.98). At 13-months, ODD-alone group responded better to NF than Control (d = 0.74, CI 0.05-1.43). TBR NF is not indicated for ADHD with comorbid anxiety but may benefit ADHD with ODD.Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT02251743, date of registration: 09/17/2014., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

A good night's sleep is vital for normal human cognitive performance. We earlier reported that a home-based tele-neurofeedback program effectively reduced sleep problems (Krepel et al. in Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-021-09525-z , 2021). The present article presents a follow-up on this earlier study and investigates improvements in cognitive functions after sensory-motor rhythm (SMR) neurofeedback. Thirty-seven participants reporting sleep problems received SMR neurofeedback. Cognitive measures were assessed pre- and post-treatment. Measurements included a continuous performance/working memory (CPT/WM) task, Stroop task, and Trailmaking A and B test (from the IntegNeuro cognitive test battery). For neurofeedback-Learners relative to non-Learners significantly improved CPT/WM response time (d = 0.50), omission errors (d = 0.67), and Stroop incongruent performance (d = 0.72) were found. A significant time effect for both groups were found for the Stroop, the Trailmaking test part B (d = 0.52), and the Stroop interference score (d = 0.55). No significant correlations between changes in sleep and changes in cognition (p > 0.05) were found for the sample. SMR neurofeedback specifically improved measures of attention (response time and omission errors in a CPT/WM test) and working memory (Stroop incongruent) for SMR Learners compared to non-Learners with medium effect sizes. Furthermore, overall improvements for the whole sample were found on measures of executive function and visual attention, possibly reflecting non-specific or practice effects. Future better powered randomized control trials are needed to investigate if cognitive improvements are a direct effect of SMR neurofeedback or mediated by sleep improvements., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

SMR neurofeedback shows potential as a therapeutic tool for reducing sleep problems. It is hypothesized that SMR neurofeedback trains the reticulo-thalamocortical-cortical circuit involved in sleep-spindle generation. As such, strengthening this circuit is hypothesized to reduce sleep problems. The current study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a home-based device that uses SMR neurofeedback to help reduce sleep problems. Thirty-seven participants reporting sleep problems received the SMR neurofeedback-based program for 40 (n = 21) or 60 (n = 16) sessions. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Holland Sleep Disorders Questionnaire (HSDQ) were assessed at baseline, session 20, outtake, and follow-up (FU). Actigraphy measurements were taken at baseline, session 20, and outtake. Significant improvements were observed in PSQI Total (d = 0.78), PSQI Sleep Duration (d = 0.52), HSDQ Total (d = 0.80), and HSDQ Insomnia (d = 0.79). Sleep duration (based on PSQI) increased from 5.3 h at baseline to 5.8 after treatment and 6.0 h. at FU. No effects of number of sessions were found. Participants qualified as successful SMR-learners demonstrated a significantly larger gain in sleep duration (d = 0.86 pre-post; average gain = 1.0 h.) compared to non-learners. The home-based SMR tele-neurofeedback device shows the potential to effectively reduce sleep problems, with SMR-learners demonstrating significantly better improvement. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to further elucidate the specific effect of this device on sleep problems, this is the first home-based SMR neurofeedback device using dry electrodes demonstrating effectiveness and feasibility., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Stimulant medication and behaviour therapy are the most often applied and accepted treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD). Here we explore where the non-pharmacological clinical intervention known as neurofeedback (NFB), fits on the continuum of empirically supported treatments, using standard protocols. In this quantitative review we utilized an updated and stricter version of the APA guidelines for rating 'well-established' treatments and focused on efficacy and effectiveness using effect-sizes (ES) and remission, with a focus on long-term effects. Efficacy and effectiveness are compared to medication and behaviour therapy using benchmark studies. Only recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as multi-centre randomized controlled trials (RCT's) will be included. Two meta-analyses confirmed significant efficacy of standard neurofeedback protocols for parent and teacher rated symptoms with a medium effect size, and sustained effects after 6-12 months. Four multicenter RCT's demonstrated significant superiority to semi-active control groups, with medium-large effect sizes end of treatment or follow-up and remission rates of 32-47%. Effectiveness in open-label studies was confirmed, no signs of publication bias were found and no significant neurofeedback-specific side effects have been reported. Standard neurofeedback protocols in the treatment of ADHD can be concluded to be a well-established treatment with medium to large effect sizes and 32-47% remission rates and sustained effects as assessed after 6-12 months.

Neurofeedback has begun to attract the attention and scrutiny of the scientific and medical mainstream. Here, neurofeedback researchers present a consensus-derived checklist that aims to improve the reporting and experimental design standards in the field., (© The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Introduction: Quantitative Electroencephalogram-(QEEG-)informed neurofeedback is a method in which standard neurofeedback protocols are assigned, based on individual EEG characteristics in order to enhance effectiveness. Thus far clinical effectiveness data have only been published in a small sample of 21 ADHD patients. Therefore, this manuscript aims to replicate this effectiveness in a new sample of 114 patients treated with QEEG-informed neurofeedback, from a large multicentric dataset and to investigate potential predictors of neurofeedback response., Methods: A sample of 114 patients were included as a replication sample. Patients were treated with standard neurofeedback protocols (Sensori-Motor-Rhythm (SMR), Theta-Beta (TBR), or Slow Cortical Potential (SCP) neurofeedback), in combination with coaching and sleep hygiene advice. The ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were assessed at baseline, every 10th session, and at outtake. Holland Sleep Disorder Questionnaire (HSDQ) was assessed at baseline and outtake. Response was defined as ≥25% reduction (R25), ≥50% reduction (R50), and remission. Predictive analyses were focused on predicting remission status., Results: In the current sample, response rates were 85% (R25), 70% (R50), and remission was 55% and clinical effectiveness was not significantly different from the original 2012 sample. Non-remitters exhibited significantly higher baseline hyperactivity ratings. Women who remitted had significantly shorter P300 latencies and boys who remitted had significantly lower iAPF's., Discussion: In the current sample, clinical effectiveness was replicated, suggesting it is possible to assign patients to a protocol based on their individual baseline QEEG to enhance signal-to-noise ratio. Furthermore, remitters had lower baseline hyperactivity scores. Likewise, female remitters had shorter P300 latencies, whereas boys who remitted have a lower iAPF. Our data suggests initial specificity in treatment allocation, yet further studies are needed to replicate the predictors of neurofeedback remission., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Current traditional treatments for ADHD present serious limitations in terms of long-term maintenance of symptom remission and side effects. Here, we provide an overview of the rationale and scientific evidence of the efficacy of neurofeedback in regulating the brain functions in ADHD. We also review the institutional and professional regulation of clinical neurofeedback implementations., Recent Findings: Based on meta-analyses and (large multicenter) randomized controlled trials, three standard neurofeedback training protocols, namely theta/beta (TBR), sensori-motor rhythm (SMR), and slow cortical potential (SCP), turn out to be efficacious and specific. However, the practical implementation of neurofeedback as a clinical treatment is currently not regulated. We conclude that neurofeedback based on standard protocols in ADHD should be considered as a viable treatment alternative and suggest that further research is needed to understand how specific neurofeedback protocols work. Eventually, we emphasize the need for standard neurofeedback training for practitioners and binding standards for use in clinical practice.

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. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched through November 2017. Within-group and between-group standardized mean differences (SMD) of parent behavior ratings were calculated and analyzed. Ten studies met inclusion criteria (NF: ten studies, N = 256; control: nine studies, N = 250). Within-group NF effects on inattention were of medium effect size (ES) (SMD = 0.64) at post-treatment and increased to a large ES (SMD = 0.80) at FU. Regarding hyperactivity/impulsivity, NF ES were medium at post-treatment (SMD = 0.50) and FU (SMD = 0.61). Non-active control conditions yielded a small significant ES on inattention at post-treatment (SMD = 0.28) but no significant ES at FU. Active treatments (mainly methylphenidate), had large ES for inattention (post: SMD = 1.08; FU: SMD = 1.06) and medium ES for hyperactivity/impulsivity (post: SMD = 0.74; FU: SMD = 0.67). Between-group analyses also revealed an advantage of NF over non-active controls [inattention (post: SMD = 0.38; FU: SMD = 0.57); hyperactivity-impulsivity (post: SMD = 0.25; FU: SMD = 0.39)], and favored active controls for inattention only at pre-post (SMD = - 0.44). 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.

Neurofeedback is a well-investigated treatment for ADHD and epilepsy, especially when restricted to standard protocols such as theta/beta, slow cortical potentials and sensori-motor rhythm neurofeedback. Advances in any field are welcome and other techniques are being pursued. Manufacturers and clinicians are marketing 'superior' neurofeedback approaches including 19 channel Z-score neurofeedback (ZNFB) and 3-D LORETA neurofeedback (with or without Z-scores; LNFB). We conducted a review of the empirical literature to determine if such claims were warranted. This review included the above search terms in Pubmed, Google scholar and any references that met our criteria from the ZNFB publication list and was restricted to group based studies examining improvement in a clinical population that underwent peer review (book chapters, magazine articles or conference presentations are not included since these are not peer reviewed). Fifteen relevant studies emerged with only six meeting our criterion. Based on review of these studies it was concluded that empirical validation of these approaches is sorely lacking. There is no empirical data that supports the notion that 19-channel z-score neurofeedback is effective or superior. The quality of studies for LNFB was better compared to ZNFB and some suggestion for efficacy was demonstrated for ADHD and Tinnitus distress. However, these findings need to be replicated, extended to other populations and have yet to show any "superiority." Our conclusions continue to emphasize the pervasive lack of evidence supporting these approaches to neurofeedback and the implications of this are discussed.

There is a growing interest in the application of psychophysiological signals in more applied settings. Unidirectional sensory motor rhythm-training (SMR) has demonstrated consistent effects on sleep. In this study the main aim was to analyze to what extent participants could gain voluntary control over sleep-related parameters and secondarily to assess possible influences of this training on sleep metrics. Bidirectional training of SMR as well as heart rate variability (HRV) was used to assess the feasibility of training these parameters as possible brain computer interfaces (BCI) signals, and assess effects normally associated with unidirectional SMR training such as the influence on objective and subjective sleep parameters. Participants (n = 26) received between 11 and 21 training sessions during 7 weeks in which they received feedback on their personalized threshold for either SMR or HRV activity, for both up- and down regulation. During a pre- and post-test a sleep log was kept and participants used a wrist actigraph. Participants were asked to take an afternoon nap on the first day at the testing facility. During napping, sleep spindles were assessed as well as self-reported sleep measures of the nap. Although the training demonstrated successful learning to increase and decrease SMR and HRV activity, no effects were found of bidirectional training on sleep spindles, actigraphy, sleep diaries, and self-reported sleep quality. As such it is concluded that bidirectional SMR and HRV training can be safely used as a BCI and participants were able to improve their control over physiological signals with bidirectional training, whereas the application of bidirectional SMR and HRV training did not lead to significant changes of sleep quality in this healthy population.

Objectives: Neurofeedback is a technique that aims to teach a subject to regulate a brain parameter measured by a technical interface to modulate his/her related brain and cognitive activities. However, the use of neurofeedback as a therapeutic tool for psychiatric disorders remains controversial. The aim of this review is to summarize and to comment the level of evidence of electroencephalogram (EEG) neurofeedback and real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) neurofeedback for therapeutic application in psychiatry., Method: Literature on neurofeedback and mental disorders but also on brain computer interfaces (BCI) used in the field of neurocognitive science has been considered by the group of expert of the Neurofeedback evaluation & training (NExT) section of the French Association of biological psychiatry and neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN)., Results: Results show a potential efficacy of EEG-neurofeedback in the treatment of attentional-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, even if this is still debated. For other mental disorders, there is too limited research to warrant the use of EEG-neurofeedback in clinical practice. Regarding fMRI neurofeedback, the level of evidence remains too weak, for now, to justify clinical use. The literature review highlights various unclear points, such as indications (psychiatric disorders, pathophysiologic rationale), protocols (brain signals targeted, learning characteristics) and techniques (EEG, fMRI, signal processing)., Conclusion: The field of neurofeedback involves psychiatrists, neurophysiologists and researchers in the field of brain computer interfaces. Future studies should determine the criteria for optimizing neurofeedback sessions. A better understanding of the learning processes underpinning neurofeedback could be a key element to develop the use of this technique in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 L’Encéphale, Paris. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In this review article an overview of the history and current status of neurofeedback for the treatment of ADHD and insomnia is provided. Recent insights suggest a central role of circadian phase delay, resulting in sleep onset insomnia (SOI) in a sub-group of ADHD patients. Chronobiological treatments, such as melatonin and early morning bright light, affect the suprachiasmatic nucleus. This nucleus has been shown to project to the noradrenergic locus coeruleus (LC) thereby explaining the vigilance stabilizing effects of such treatments in ADHD. It is hypothesized that both Sensori-Motor Rhythm (SMR) and Slow-Cortical Potential (SCP) neurofeedback impact on the sleep spindle circuitry resulting in increased sleep spindle density, normalization of SOI and thereby affect the noradrenergic LC, resulting in vigilance stabilization. After SOI is normalized, improvements on ADHD symptoms will occur with a delayed onset of effect. Therefore, clinical trials investigating new treatments in ADHD should include assessments at follow-up as their primary endpoint rather than assessments at outtake. Furthermore, an implication requiring further study is that neurofeedback could be stopped when SOI is normalized, which might result in fewer sessions., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Among the clinical applications of neurofeedback, most research has been conducted in ADHD. As an introduction a short overview of the general history of neurofeedback will be given, while the main part of the paper deals with a review of the current state of neurofeedback in ADHD. A meta-analysis on neurofeedback from 2009 found large effect sizes for inattention and impulsivity and medium effects sizes for hyperactivity. Since 2009 several new studies, including 4 placebo-controlled studies, have been published. These latest studies are reviewed and discussed in more detail. The review focuses on studies employing (1) semi-active, (2) active, and (3) placebo-control groups. The assessment of specificity of neurofeedback treatment in ADHD is discussed and it is concluded that standard protocols such as theta/beta, SMR and slow cortical potentials neurofeedback are well investigated and have demonstrated specificity. The paper ends with an outlook on future questions and tasks. It is concluded that future controlled clinical trials should, in a next step, focus on such known protocols, and be designed along the lines of learning theory., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In ADHD several EEG biomarkers have been described before, with relevance to treatment outcome to stimulant medication. This pilot-study aimed at personalizing neurofeedback treatment to these specific sub-groups to investigate if such an approach leads to improved clinical outcomes. Furthermore, pre- and post-treatment EEG and ERP changes were investigated in a sub-group to study the neurophysiological effects of neurofeedback. Twenty-one patients with ADHD were treated with QEEG-informed neurofeedback and post-treatment effects on inattention (ATT), hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI) and comorbid depressive symptoms were investigated. There was a significant improvement for both ATT, HI and comorbid depressive complaints after QEEG-informed neurofeedback. The effect size for ATT was 1.78 and for HI was 1.22. Furthermore, anterior individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF) demonstrated a strong relation to improvement on comorbid depressive complaints. Pre- and post-treatment effects for the SMR neurofeedback sub-group exhibited increased N200 and P300 amplitudes and decreased SMR EEG power post-treatment. This pilot study is the first study demonstrating that it is possible to select neurofeedback protocols based on individual EEG biomarkers and suggests this results in improved treatment outcome specifically for ATT, however these results should be replicated in further controlled studies. A slow anterior iAPF at baseline predicts poor treatment response on comorbid depressive complaints in line with studies in depression. The effects of SMR neurofeedback resulted in specific ERP and EEG changes.

Miguel Garcia Pimenta,1 Trevor Brown,2 Martijn Arns,3– 5 Stefanie Enriquez-Geppert1,6 1Department of Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2NeuroCare Group, Melbourne, Australia; 3Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Location AMC, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 4Research Institute Brainclinics, Brainclinics Foundation, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 5Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 6Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells & Systems, Section of Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, University of Groningen, Groningen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Miguel Garcia PimentaDepartment of Clinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Groningen, 9712 TS, the NetherlandsTel +31 50 363 6537Email m.garcia.pimenta@rug.nlPurpose: Recent reviews have proposed that scientifically validated standard EEG neurofeedback (NF) protocols are an efficacious and specific treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here, we review the current evidence for the treatment efficacy and clinical effectiveness of NF in ADHD to investigate whether NF treatment personalization (standard protocols matched to the electrophysiological features of ADHD) and combination with other interventions (psychosocial, sleep hygiene and nutritional advice) might yield superior long-term treatment outcomes relative to non-personalized NF and medication monotreatments.Methods: The electronic databases PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched using our key terms. Of the 38 resulting studies, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and open-label studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were analyzed for effect sizes and remission rates at the end of treatment and at follow-up. The effects of personalized and multimodal NF treatments were compared to non-personalized NF monotreatments and with two benchmark medication studies.Results: The analysis of RCTs indicated that the long-term effects of personalized NF interventions were superior to non-personalized NF and comparable to those of medication alone or in combination with behavioral intervention. The analysis of open-label trials further indicates that the interaction of NF with parental interventions, sleep and nutritional advice might yield superior clinical effectiveness relative to NF and medication monotreatments.Conclusion: Personalized and multimodal NF interventions seem to yield superior treatment efficacy relative to NF alone and superior clinical effectiveness relative to medication. We propose that treatment outcomes may be further enhanced by adjusting NF non-specific factors (eg, reinforcement contingencies) to specific ADHD characteristics (eg, reward sensitivity). Future NF research should focus on the systematic evaluation of the treatment outcomes of personalized and multimodal treatments.Keywords: neurofeedback, ADHD, treatment efficacy, effectiveness, personalized, multimodal