Neurocognitive training for children with and without AD/HD

Abstract

There is accumulating evidence that computerised cognitive training of inhibitory control and/or working memory can lead to behavioural improvement in children with AD/HD. Using a randomised waitlist control design, the present study examined the effects of combined working memory and inhibitory control training, with and without passive attention monitoring via EEG, for children with and without AD/HD. One hundred and twenty-eight children (60 children with AD/HD, 68 without AD/HD) were randomly allocated to one of three training conditions (waitlist; working memory and inhibitory control with attention monitoring; working memory and inhibitory control without attention monitoring) and completed with pre- and post-training assessments of overt behaviour (from 2 sources), trained and untrained cognitive task performance, and resting EEG activity. The two active training conditions completed 25 sessions of training at home over a 4- 5-week period. Results showed significant improvements in overt behaviour for children with AD/HD in both training conditions compared to the waitlist condition as rated by a parent and other adult. Post-training improvements in the areas of spatial working memory, ignoring distracting stimuli, and sustained attention were reported for children with AD/HD. Children without AD/HD showed behavioural improvements after training. The improvements for both groups were maintained over the 6-week period following training. The passive attention monitoring via EEG had a minor effect on training outcomes. Overall, the results suggest that combined WM/IC training can result in improved behavioural control for children with and without AD/HD.

What is the level of evidence for the use of currently available technologies in facilitating the self-management of difficulties associated with ADHD in children and young people? A systematic review

“…One of the eight included RCTs, one was considered to be at overall high risk of bias [34], five RCTs were judged as being at overall low risk [51, 52,54,55,56] and two RCTs were considered to be at overall unclear risk of bias [53,57]. All included RCTs were considered to be at a low risk of bias for selective reporting [34,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57].…”

“…All included RCTs were considered to be at a low risk of bias for selective reporting [34,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57].…”

“…Ten of the fourteen included studies [34,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]63] used ordinal scales of measurement all with established psychometric properties. Twelve of the included studies [34,51,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] used scales of measurement that did not have established psychometric properties.…”

“…Twelve of the included studies [34,51,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] used scales of measurement that did not have established psychometric properties. Four of the fourteen studies [58][59][60]63] did not perform any formal statistical analysis.…”

“…The sample size for these four studies ranged from one to eight. Five of the fourteen studies [34,52,53,56,57] aggregated data used with ordinal scales, which may put findings at risk. Further details of the outcome measurement quality assessment can be found in Appendix 5.…”