Impact of transcranial alternating current stimulation on working memory and selective attention in athletes with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective The current study aimed to investigate the impact of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on working memory and selective attention in athletes with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). MethodsIn total 45 athletes with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were randomly divided into three equal groups (sham, control and experimental groups). All participants in the sham and experimental groups received stimulations on the F3 and SO with a current of (10 HZ) 1 mA for 15 min over 10 sessions (P ≤ 0.05), and after 10 sessions, each group was retested. After 2 weeks, a follow-up test was performed according to the post-test using the Stroop test and N-BACK-(working memory test) to test statistical hypotheses (P ≤ 0.05). ResultsThe results of repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that applying tACS proved effective in improving the working memory and selective attention of ADHD athletes. ConclusionsThe study's findings indicated that the protocol of applying tACS 1 MA with 10 HZ improved the working memory and selective attention of ADHD athletes.

Transcranial alternating current stimulation in affecting cognitive impairment in psychiatric disorders: a review

“…This protocol led to a significant P300 amplitude increase and omission-type errors improvement. The third study [ 48 ] used 10 stimulations of 10 Hz in ADHD athlete children and found a significant improvement in WM.…”

“…Randomized control trials (RCT) were assessed according to the Cochrane database RoB 2 tool [ 52 ], with the assessed domains being randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, selection of the reported result and overall bias. Out of 15 RCT, three were evaluated as “Some concerns” due to single-blind design [ 23 , 46 , 47 ], two due to insufficiently described statistical analysis [ 21 , 35 ], one due to unsuccessful blinding integrity [ 41 ], and one due to insufficiently described blinding procedure [ 48 ]. Eight studies were considered “Low risk” [ 22 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 40 , 42 , 49 , 50 ].…”