Evidence-Based Information on the Clinical Use of Neurofeedback for ADHD

Neurofeedback (NF) is a training to enhance self-regulatory capacity over brain activity patterns and consequently over brain mental states. Recent findings suggest that NF is a promising alternative for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We comprehensively reviewed literature searching for studies on the effectiveness and specificity of NF for the treatment of ADHD. In addition, clinically informative evidence-based data are discussed. We found 3 systematic review on the use of NF for ADHD and 6 randomized controlled trials that have not been included in these reviews. Most nonrandomized controlled trials found positive results with medium-to-large effect sizes, but the evidence for effectiveness are less robust when only randomized controlled studies are considered. The direct comparison of NF and sham-NF in 3 published studies have found no group differences, nevertheless methodological caveats, such as the quality of the training protocol used, sample size, and sample selection may have contributed to the negative results. Further data on specificity comes from electrophysiological studies reporting that NF effectively changes brain activity patterns. No safety issues have emerged from clinical trials and NF seems to be well tolerated and accepted. Follow-up studies support long-term effects of NF. Currently there is no available data to guide clinicians on the predictors of response to NF and on optimal treatment protocol. In conclusion, NF is a valid option for the treatment for ADHD, but further evidence is required to guide its use.

Clinical Efficacy of a New Automated Hemoencefalographic Neurofeedback Protocol

Among the ongoing attempts to enhance cognitive performance, an emergent and yet underrepresented venue is brought by hemoencefalographic neurofeedback (HEG). This paper presents three related advances in HEG neurofeedback for cognitive enhancement: a) a new HEG protocol for cognitive enhancement, as well as b) the results of independent measures of biological efficacy (EEG brain maps) extracted in three phases, during a one year follow up case study; c) the results of the first controlled clinical trial of HEG, designed to assess the efficacy of the technique for cognitive enhancement of an adult and neurologically intact population. The new protocol was developed in the environment of a software that organizes digital signal algorithms in a flowchart format. Brain maps were produced through 10 brain recordings. The clinical trial used a working memory test as its independent measure of achievement. The main conclusion of this study is that the technique appears to be clinically promising. Approaches to cognitive performance from a metabolic viewpoint should be explored further. However, it is particularly important to note that, to our knowledge, this is the world's first controlled clinical study on the matter and it is still early for an ultimate evaluation of the technique.

EFFECTS OF MUSCULAR STRETCHING AND SEGMENTAL STABILIZATION ON FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY AND PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: A RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIAL

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 exercise programs, segmental stabilization exercises (SSEs) and stretching of trunk and hamstrings muscles, on functional disability, pain, and activation of the transversus abdominis muscle (TrA), in individuals with chronic low back pain. Methods: A total of 30 participants were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups as a function of intervention. In the segmental stabilization group (SS), exercises focused on the TrA and lumbar multifidus muscles, whereas in the stretching group (ST), exercises focused on stretching the erector spinae, hamstrings, and triceps surae. Severity of pain (visual analog scale and McGill pain questionnaire) and functional disability (Oswestry disability questionnaire) and TrA muscle activation capacity (Pressure Biofeedback Unit, or PBU) were compared as a function of intervention. Interventions lasted 6 weeks, and sessions happened twice a week (30 minutes each). Analysis of variance was used for intergroup and intragroup comparisons. Results: As compared with baseline, both treatments were effective in relieving pain and improving disability (P < .001). Those in the SS group had significantly higher gains for all variables. The stretching group did not effectively activate the TrA (P = .94). Conclusion: Both techniques improved pain and reduced disability. In this study, SS was superior to muscular stretching for the measured variables associated with chronic low back pain. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2012;35:279-285)