Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1R34MH080775-01A1 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) | NIH |
| Brain Resource Center | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Neurofeedback is increasingly advocated for treatment of ADHD despite a thin evidence base. The numerous open and partially controlled studies suffer serious design flaws. In particular, there is no published double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT), which would control for experimenter and participant biases. The primary aim of this R34 pilot study is to conduct a small-scale pilot with 39 8-12 year-olds with ADHD to prepare for such a larger RCT.
Thirty-nine boys and girls aged 6-12 with rigorously diagnosed DSM-IV ADHD not currently taking medication will be twice-randomized: first to active neurofeedback (n=26) vs. sham neurofeedback (n=13), and simultaneously to 2 vs. 3 times a week treatment frequency (at least 18 in each frequency, 12 active and 6 sham) for 40 treatments. At treatment 24, major assessments will include measures of satisfaction and blinding, and subjects will be given the option of switching to the opposite treatment frequency for the remaining 16 treatments to generate a practical measure of schedule palatability. Major assessments (at baseline, treatment 12, treatment 24, treatment 40, and follow-up) will include measures of symptoms, functional impairment, academic performance/achievement, and neuropsychological tests of attention, vigilance, and executive functioning. Every 3 treatments parents will rate ADHD symptoms and every 6 treatments teachers will rate, to track the response curve over time. Baseline EEG arousal and ADHD subtype will be examined as possible moderators. By determining the optimal frequency and number of treatments and demonstrating feasibility of double blinding, this pilot study should pave the way for a definitive large RCT of neurofeedback.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active neurofeedback | Active Comparator | In the active neurofeedback condition, the intervention is active neurofeedback (actual neurofeedback) either twice weekly or three times a week (randomized to frequency), with the same amount of total treatment over 40 sessions, varying only in frequency. Neurofeedback will be via the CyberLearning technology, using videogame race car speed and steering as feedback governed by EEG theta-beta ratio through the interface. the game controller is used in the usual fashion, but maximal speed is capped by the threshold theta-beta ratio, which changes from minute-to-minute by fuzzy logic based on the previous minute's ratio. If theta power exceeds a threshold, the rumble function of the controller comes on as a warning. The feedback is transparent to the patient, who just plays the videogame. |
|
| Sham Neurofeedback | Sham Comparator | The sham condition will appear identical to the neurofeedback in all aspects: equipment, duration, frequency, and videogame choices. The only difference is that the interface module will be pre-programmed to give random feedback rather than contingent on the participant's brainwave power spectrum. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Neurofeedback | Device | A comparison of active neurofeedback to sham neurofeedback and of two treatment schedules: twice weekly vs. three times a week, with the same amount of total treatment over 40 sessions, varying only in frequency. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #1. Recruitment Number | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways, this first way was via the number of participants recruited. | 2 years |
| Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #2. Retention | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways. The second way was via the percentage of participants retained the end of treatment (40th session). | 40th treatment sessions ~ 13-20 weeks |
| Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #3. Validity of Blind | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways. The 3rd way was the percentage of child and parent post-hoc guess regarding treatment assignment. | Post-treatment at session 40 |
| Frequency Advisability Outcome (2X vs. 3X/wk) #1 Parent & Child Satisfaction | Parent & child satisfaction of treatment frequency (x2 vs x3 treatments per week) was measured on a likert scale with anchors 0 (indicating low satisfaction) and 7 (indicating high satisfaction). | 24 treatments ~ 8-12 weeks |
| Frequency Advisability Outcome (2X vs. 3X/wk) #2. Treatment Frequency Choice | Treatment frequency preference when given choice to change or not to change treatment frequency from 2 to 3X/wk or 3 to 2X/wk at treatment # 24. | 24 treatments ~ 8-12 weeks |
| Necessary Duration of Treatment | The necessary duration of treatments was examined via identifying the number of treatments at which improvement stabilized, as shown visually on graphs of parent-rated ADHD symptoms from the SNAP-IV (0-3 scale, lower score is better) for those participants in the Active Neurofeedback who completed 40 treatment sessions.The Sham group is not included in this outcome. |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| L. Eugene Arnold, M.Ed., M.D. | Ohio State University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Ohio State University Nisonger Center | Columbus | Ohio | 43210 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22090396 | Background | Lofthouse N, Arnold LE, Hersch S, Hurt E, DeBeus R. A review of neurofeedback treatment for pediatric ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2012 Jul;16(5):351-72. doi: 10.1177/1087054711427530. Epub 2011 Nov 16. | |
| 22617866 | Result | Arnold LE, Lofthouse N, Hersch S, Pan X, Hurt E, Bates B, Kassouf K, Moone S, Grantier C. EEG neurofeedback for ADHD: double-blind sham-controlled randomized pilot feasibility trial. J Atten Disord. 2013 Jul;17(5):410-9. doi: 10.1177/1087054712446173. Epub 2012 May 22. |
Not provided
Not provided
Exclusion criteria: IQ <80, mental age <6, comorbid disorder or a medical disorder requiring medication that had psychoactive effects, >5 previous NF treatments, antipsychotic medication within 6 mths pre-baseline, fluoxetine/atomoxetine 4-wks pre-baseline, stimulant 1-wk pre-baseline, or any other psychotropic medication 2-wks pre-baseline.
Dates of recruitment: August 2008 to December 2009. Location: Nisonger Center, OSU Medical Center
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Active Neurofeedback | In the active neurofeedback condition, subjects will receive accurate neurofeedback either twice weekly vs. three times a week, with the same amount of total treatment over 40 sessions, varying only in frequency. |
| FG001 | Sham Neurofeedback | The sham condition will appear identical to the neurofeedback in all aspects: equipment, duration, frequency, and videogame choices. The only difference is that the interface module will be pre-programmed to give random feedback rather than contingent on the participant's brainwave power spectrum. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Active Neurofeedback | In the active neurofeedback condition, subjects will receive accurate neurofeedback either twice weekly vs. three times a week, with the same amount of total treatment over 40 sessions, varying only in frequency. |
| BG001 | Sham Neurofeedback |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #1. Recruitment Number | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways, this first way was via the number of participants recruited. | Based on inclusion & exclusion criteria and randomization in a 2:1 ratio to active NF vs. sham NF. | Posted | Number | participants | 2 years |
|
40 treatment sessions
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Active Neurofeedback | In the active neurofeedback condition, subjects will receive accurate neurofeedback either twice weekly vs. three times a week, with the same amount of total treatment over 40 sessions, varying only in frequency. |
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L. Eugene Arnold, M.D. M.Ed. | The Ohio State University | 614-685-6708 | L.Arnold@osumc.edu |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001289 | Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019958 | Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders |
| D065886 | Neurodevelopmental Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D058765 | Neurofeedback |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001676 | Biofeedback, Psychology |
| D026441 | Mind-Body Therapies |
| D000529 | Complementary Therapies |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Sham neurofeedback | Device | Active neurofeedback vs. sham neurofeedback for 40 treatments, either twice or three times per week. |
|
|
| 40 treatment sessions ~ 13-20 weeks |
| Distance to center, poor grades |
|
The sham condition will appear identical to the neurofeedback in all aspects: equipment, duration, frequency, and videogame choices. The only difference is that the interface module will be pre-programmed to give random feedback rather than contingent on the participant's brainwave power spectrum. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
The sham condition will appear identical to the neurofeedback in all aspects: equipment, duration, frequency, and videogame choices. The only difference is that the interface module will be pre-programmed to give random feedback rather than contingent on the participant's brainwave power spectrum.
|
|
| Primary | Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #2. Retention | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways. The second way was via the percentage of participants retained the end of treatment (40th session). | Number randomized was denominator for percentage of participants completing 40 treatment sessions. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 40th treatment sessions ~ 13-20 weeks |
|
|
|
| Primary | Feasibility of Double-blind, Sham-controlled Design #3. Validity of Blind | The feasibility of the double-blind, sham-controlled design was examined in 3 ways. The 3rd way was the percentage of child and parent post-hoc guess regarding treatment assignment. | Participants in both Active and Sham Neurofeedback completing 40 treatment sessions. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Post-treatment at session 40 |
|
|
|
| Primary | Frequency Advisability Outcome (2X vs. 3X/wk) #1 Parent & Child Satisfaction | Parent & child satisfaction of treatment frequency (x2 vs x3 treatments per week) was measured on a likert scale with anchors 0 (indicating low satisfaction) and 7 (indicating high satisfaction). | Those completing 24 treatments | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | 24 treatments ~ 8-12 weeks |
|
|
|
| Primary | Frequency Advisability Outcome (2X vs. 3X/wk) #2. Treatment Frequency Choice | Treatment frequency preference when given choice to change or not to change treatment frequency from 2 to 3X/wk or 3 to 2X/wk at treatment # 24. | participants completing treatment 24 | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 treatments ~ 8-12 weeks |
|
|
|
| Primary | Necessary Duration of Treatment | The necessary duration of treatments was examined via identifying the number of treatments at which improvement stabilized, as shown visually on graphs of parent-rated ADHD symptoms from the SNAP-IV (0-3 scale, lower score is better) for those participants in the Active Neurofeedback who completed 40 treatment sessions.The Sham group is not included in this outcome. | Number of participants in active (n=24) and sham (n=10) neurofeedback completing 40 treatments. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | 40 treatment sessions ~ 13-20 weeks |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 26 |
| 0 |
| 26 |
| EG001 | Sham Neurofeedback | The sham condition will appear identical to the neurofeedback in all aspects: equipment, duration, frequency, and videogame choices. The only difference is that the interface module will be pre-programmed to give random feedback rather than contingent on the participant's brainwave power spectrum. | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D001521 |
| Behavior Therapy |
| D011613 | Psychotherapy |
| D004191 | Behavioral Disciplines and Activities |
| D030141 | Feedback, Psychological |
| Correct guesses by children |
|
| Correct guesses by parents |
|
| Incorrect guesses by children |
|
| Incorrect guesses by parent |
|
| SNAP-IV Score Total at Treatment 24 |
|
| SNAP-IV Score Total at Treatment 40 |
|