Skip to content

Double-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD

Double-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02251743
Enrollment
144
Registered
2014-09-29
Start date
2014-09-30
Completion date
2020-08-31
Last updated
2020-09-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Keywords

ADHD, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, neurofeedback, EEG

Brief summary

Additional treatments with long-term benefit for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are needed; one of the more promising is neurofeedback (EEG biofeedback), which has several randomized controlled trials showing significant benefit, but which are inconclusive because they were not double-blinded; the benefit could have been nonspecific (placebo response). Because of neurofeedback's labor-intensive cost (1 treatment costing as much as a month's medication), It is important to know how much specific benefit it yields. This 2- site placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial is the first to test for a specific benefit of neurofeedback with adequate power, the first designed and implemented collaboratively by experts in neurofeedback, ADHD, and clinical trials, the first to rigorously monitor quality not only of treatment, but also of placebo and blinding, and the first to follow up for 2 years to examine enduring effect; the results, whether positive or negative, will provide evidence for clinical practice and public policy regarding ADHD.

Detailed description

Current established, evidence-based treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are incompletely effective and not universally acceptable, and appear to wane in effect over time despite significant immediate benefit. E.g., FDA-approved medication, which shows large acute benefit, leaves a third of children only partially treated even when combined with behavioral treatment, and has not been demonstrated effective beyond 2 years. Additional treatments are needed that are effective with persisting benefit, preferably related to a biomarker predicting treatment response. A good candidate is electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback, called neurofeedback (NF). It is based on 1) observations that patients with ADHD often have excessive theta band (4-8 Hz) quantitative EEG power, low beta band (13-21 Hz) power, and excessive theta beta ratio (TBR), and 2) theoretical application of operant conditioning to correct this EEG imbalance. Metaanalysis of 6 randomized clinical trials found a large benefit for inattentive symptoms and medium benefit for hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. Unfortunately, none of these were blinded. Three of 4 small blinded studies found no advantage for NF over sham, but used suboptimal NF, leaving the situation inconclusive. Because of the expense and time required by NF, there is a public health need to determine whether it has a specific effect beyond the obvious nonspecific benefit of doing a focused activity several times a week with a friendly,encouraging adult who reinforces for attending to the task. Experts in NF, ADHD, clinical trials, statistics, and data management have joined to design a double-blind sham-controlled randomized clinical trial to answer several pressing scientific and clinical questions in a way that will be credible to all. At each of 2 sites (1 university & 1 NF clinic) 70 children (total N=140) age 7 through 10 with rigorously diagnosed moderate to severe ADHD and TBR\>5 will be randomized in a 3:2 ratio to active TBR downtraining by NF vs. a sham training of equal duration, intensity, and appearance. To keep both participants and study staff blind, the sham will utilize pre-recorded EEGs with the participant's artifacts superimposed. The sham will be programmed into the equipment via internet by an off-site statistician-guided person who has no contact with participants. Treatment fidelity will be trained and monitored by 2 acknowledged NF leaders in a manner that protects blinding. Multi-domain assessments at baseline, mid-treatment, treatment end, and follow-ups at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years will include parent and teacher ratings of symptoms & impairment, neuropsychological tests,clinician ratings, and quantitative EEG as well as tests of blinding and of sham inertness. Hypotheses include that NF will improve parent- and teacher-rated inattentive symptoms (primary outcome) and other outcomes more than sham,that benefit will persist for 2 years after training, that initial TBR will moderate treatment response, and that change in TBR will mediate response. Research Domain Criteria and EEG brain changes will be explored, including relationship of TBR to clinical symptoms, executive-function impairment, and sleep.

Interventions

Each session, the child participates in 5 training tasks. Each task lasts 5 minutes at the beginning and gradually increases to 9 minutes per task over the course of the neurofeedback as the child's attention span improves. We record four results for each of the 5 tasks: 1. The number of half-second periods that they met the reward parameters (i.e. theta mV below threshold; beta mV above threshold) 2. Average voltage of theta waves 3. Average voltage of beta 4. Average ratio of theta to beta power (TBR)

Sponsors

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
CollaboratorNIH
University of North Carolina
CollaboratorOTHER
Ohio State University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 10 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Boys and girls age 7 to 10 * IQ\>80 * diagnosed DSM-5 ADHD inattentive presentation or combined presentation * an item mean ≥1.5 sd above norms on a 0-3 metric both on parent ratings of either DSM-IV inattentive symptoms or all 18 ADHD symptoms and on teacher ratings of either inattentive symptoms or all 18 ADHD symptoms * an eyes-open QEEG with theta-beta power ratio \>4.5 at Cz or Fz

Exclusion criteria

* comorbid disorder requiring psychoactive medication other than FDA-approved ADHD medication * a medical disorder requiring systemic chronic medication with confounding psychoactive effects * sleep apnea * restless legs syndrome * IQ \<80 * plans to move requiring school change during the next 3 months * plans to start other ADHD treatment in the next 3 months * antipsychotic agent in the 6 months prior to baseline assessment * fluoxetine in the 4 weeks prior to baseline * other psychiatric medication in the two weeks prior to baseline -\>5 previous NF treatments * Vitamin D deficiency will be a temporary exclusion

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Scores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsAssessed at Baseline, Mid-treatment (2 months), End-treatment (4 months), at 6 month follow up, at 13 month follow upThe primary outcome measure is the composite scores of teacher and parent-rated inattentive symptoms on the Conners-3, rated on a scale of 0-3. Lower scores represent a better outcome, with a maximum score of 3 and a minimum score of 0.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Of 329 children screened, 305 passed categorical and parent-rated dimensional criteria for ADHD. Of these, 235 passed the TBR screen. Of the149 completely eligible,144 were randomized, and of the 144, 2 withdrew consent for logistical reasons before any post-treatment assessment. Thus,142 subjects comprised the population for the primary analysis.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Neurofeedback Treatment
The intended treatment is downtraining of theta power and uptraining of beta power for 38 treatments of active NF. Neurofeedback treatment: Each session, the child participates in 5 training tasks. Each task lasts 5 minutes at the beginning and gradually increases to 9 minutes per task over the course of the neurofeedback as the child's attention span improves. We record four results for each of the 5 tasks: 1. The number of half-second periods that they met the reward parameters (i.e. theta mV below threshold; beta mV above threshold) 2. Average voltage of theta waves 3. Average voltage of beta 4. Average ratio of theta to beta power (TBR)
84
Sham Neurofeedback Treatment
Participants assigned to sham and their trainers will be fed EEG data from pre-recorded files (recorded during live clinical NF) rather than from the participant's live signal. In order to prevent unblinding of experienced NF trainers/technicians, artifacts from the participant's EMG and EOG are blended into the pre-recorded EEG so that the trainer controlling the feedback cannot differentiate between live and simulated data. To insure trainer/technician blindness, the pre-recorded EEG will be 38 consecutive EEGs from the same age-matched clinical case so that EEGs of the sham group will also show training progress over successive sessions, like real NF. Neurofeedback treatment: Each session, the child participates in 5 training tasks. Each task lasts 5 minutes at the beginning and gradually increases to 9 minutes per task over the course of the neurofeedback as the child's attention span improves. We record four results for each of the 5 tasks.
58
Total142

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject11

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalNeurofeedback TreatmentSham Neurofeedback Treatment
ADHD Medication41 Participants23 Participants18 Participants
ADHD Subtype
Combined
91 Participants53 Participants38 Participants
ADHD Subtype
Inattentive
51 Participants31 Participants20 Participants
Age, Continuous8.58 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.14
8.67 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.1
8.51 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.17
Child's Current grade
1
22 Participants15 Participants7 Participants
Child's Current grade
2
38 Participants23 Participants15 Participants
Child's Current grade
3
43 Participants25 Participants18 Participants
Child's Current grade
4
25 Participants12 Participants13 Participants
Child's Current grade
5
14 Participants9 Participants5 Participants
Child's Educational setting
Charter School
16 Participants13 Participants3 Participants
Child's Educational setting
Home schooled
3 Participants3 Participants0 Participants
Child's Educational setting
Regular private/parochial school
57 Participants30 Participants27 Participants
Child's Educational setting
Regular public school
57 Participants32 Participants25 Participants
Child's Educational setting
Regular school + special classes
9 Participants6 Participants3 Participants
CHIPS
Generalized Anxiety Disorder
24 number of participants16 number of participants8 number of participants
CHIPS
Oppositional-Defiant Disorder
71 number of participants41 number of participants30 number of participants
CHIPS
Separation Anxiety
11 number of participants9 number of participants2 number of participants
CHIPS
Social Phobia
3 number of participants3 number of participants0 number of participants
CHIPS
Specific Phobias
24 number of participants15 number of participants9 number of participants
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
ADHD Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
1.77 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.73
1.68 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.77
1.88 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.66
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
ADHD Inattentiveness
2.03 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51
2 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51
2.08 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Aggression
0.46 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.43
0.46 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.44
0.46 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.42
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Conduct Disorder
0.16 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.22
0.17 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.21
0.15 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.22
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Executive Functioning
1.92 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6
1.9 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.62
1.96 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.58
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Global Index
1.54 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.56
1.49 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.59
1.61 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
1.79 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.73
1.71 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.78
1.92 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Inattentive
2.08 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51
2.04 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.52
2.13 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.49
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Learning Problems
1.25 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.73
1.31 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.71
1.18 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.75
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Negative Impression Index
0.18 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.23
0.18 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.23
0.19 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.24
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Oppositional Defiant
0.89 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64
0.87 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67
0.92 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Peer Relations
0.7 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67
0.73 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67
0.66 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.68
Composite Conner's Subscale (Parent and Teacher)
Positive Impression Index
0.33 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.31
0.32 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.31
0.33 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.32
Number of Adults in Home2.02 average number of adults in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.69
1.94 average number of adults in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.61
2.14 average number of adults in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.78
Number of Children in Home2.12 average number of children in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.97
2.12 average number of children in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.03
2.12 average number of children in home
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.88
Number of school changes
0
80 Participants48 Participants32 Participants
Number of school changes
1
42 Participants25 Participants17 Participants
Number of school changes
2 or more
20 Participants11 Participants9 Participants
Primary Caregiver
Adoptive Mother
14 Participants8 Participants6 Participants
Primary Caregiver
Biological Father
9 Participants7 Participants2 Participants
Primary Caregiver
Biological Mother
116 Participants67 Participants49 Participants
Primary Caregiver
Grandmother
3 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Primary Living Arrangement
Parental (at least one parent)
132 Participants80 Participants52 Participants
Primary Living Arrangement
Parental (shared custody)
8 Participants3 Participants5 Participants
Primary Living Arrangement
Relative other than parents
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
5 Participants0 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black/African American
11 Participants7 Participants4 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic/Latino
19 Participants13 Participants6 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Multi-Race
13 Participants7 Participants6 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
4 Participants4 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Unknown
3 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
106 Participants64 Participants42 Participants
Repeated Grade7 Participants6 Participants1 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
31 Participants19 Participants12 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
111 Participants65 Participants46 Participants
Special Education Services
504 Plan
22 participants10 participants12 participants
Special Education Services
Individual Educational Plan
43 participants23 participants20 participants
Special Education Services
Special accommodations
26 participants15 participants11 participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 840 / 58
other
Total, other adverse events
75 / 8450 / 58
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 840 / 58

Outcome results

Primary

Scores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive Symptoms

The primary outcome measure is the composite scores of teacher and parent-rated inattentive symptoms on the Conners-3, rated on a scale of 0-3. Lower scores represent a better outcome, with a maximum score of 3 and a minimum score of 0.

Time frame: Assessed at Baseline, Mid-treatment (2 months), End-treatment (4 months), at 6 month follow up, at 13 month follow up

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsMid-Treatment1.51 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.49
Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive Symptoms6 month follow up1.50 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.52
Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsEnd-Treatment1.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.51
Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive Symptoms13 month follow up1.37 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.56
Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsBaseline2.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.37
Sham Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive Symptoms13 month follow up1.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.52
Sham Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsBaseline2.08 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.38
Sham Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsMid-Treatment1.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.46
Sham Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive SymptomsEnd-Treatment1.54 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.44
Sham Neurofeedback TreatmentScores of Teacher and Parent Rated Inattentive Symptoms6 month follow up1.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 2, 2026