NCT Number: NCT07595783
The first aim of this clinical trial is to test the feasibility and signal validity of a new approach to neurofeedback training (NF) using intensive EEG-based theta-beta NF for children with ADHD in the context of NF camps during school holidays. The second aim is to compare the efficacy of two neurofeedback protocols in reducing ADHD symptoms. Previous study results highlight that children with ADHD frequently show increased Theta-Beta-Ratios (TBR) in the qEEG, probably associated with attention difficulties, which may be ameliorated following neurofeedback training. However, the current state of research shows heterogenous findings regarding the efficacy of standard TBR NF for children with ADHD. Further study results suggest that personalized NF training protocols, based on the individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF), may be more effective in reducing ADHD symptoms than standardized ones.
Therefore, in this proof-of-concept study of children with ADHD a standard TBR NF protocol is compared with an iAPF-personalized TBR NF (iAPF-TBR NF) protocol (based on the previously obtained iAPF). The study is designed as a randomized controlled intervention trial (RCT) with three assessment points (pre [T1], post [T2] and 6-month follow-up [T3]). Primary endpoints include the reduction of ADHD symptoms assessed by parent-, teacher- and self-report questionnaires. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that NF training is associated with better performance in a sustained attention and executive function test and a reduced TBR in qEEG, particularly following iAPF-TBR NF.
The main questions are:
* Is it feasible to train groups of up to 12 children with two sessions NF per day for an eight-day-period during their school holidays? * Does iAPF-TBR NF provide a valid neuromodulatory signal compared to the standard-TBR-NF protocol? Do the frequency boundaries demonstrate spectral stability across the 16 training sessions? * Does the personalized iAPF-TBR NF training reduce ADHD symptoms measured immediately after the training more than standard-TBR-NF training? (comparison T2-T1) * Does the personalized iAPF-TBR NF training reduce ADHD symptoms measured 6 months after the NF training more than standard TBR-NF training? (comparison T3-T1) * Does the reduction in ADHD symptoms measured immediately after the NF-training persist until the 6-month follow-up? Do possible differences between iAPF-TBR NF training and standard TBR NF training remain? (comparison T3-T2)
Post-hoc analyses of the courses are carried out. In addition, selectivity analyses will be carried out for clinical subgroups (e.g. different ADHD profiles)
Interested in participating?
Request Info6 year–13 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
The study investigates the effectiveness of two NF approaches within a "school-holiday-camp"-setting. NF is a learning method based on neural plasticity, where specific EEG frequency bands are fed back in real-time. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
The training includes two sessions daily over eight camp days (a total of 16 sessions). While a small effect size (d = .2) would be expected for the comparison of iAPF-TBR NF and standard TBR NF requiring a total sample of N = 620 α= .05, 1-β = .8, G*Power; Faul et al., 2007), the present study is designed as a preliminary proof-of-concept study including an adopted target sample size. Therefore, the target sample size is set at N = 40 participants (n = 20 per arm). This sample size is sufficient to detect a medium to large effect (d = .7) with α= .10 and 1-β = .7 using one-tailed testing. This directional testing is justified by the theoretical advantage of personalized iAPF-TBR over the standard-TBR NF. The results of this pilot study will serve as essential preliminary evidence to justify the scaling of the protocol in a fully powered RCT.
The effects will be evaluated at the EEG, parent-, teacher- and self-report questionnaires, and behavioral (CPT) levels. The main objective is to determine whether the personalized NF protocol leads to superior and more sustainable effects.
Baseline frequency bands: Prior to each neurofeedback session, a one-minute resting-state EEG baseline is recorded to establish individual gain thresholds for theta and beta power. To control for non-cortical influences such as EMG artefacts, Power in frequency band 20-40 Hz is additionally required to be below a baseline threshold.
For NF and QEEG the THERA PRAX® MOBILE 13-channel full-band DC-EEG devices will be used (neuroConn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany). They include a THERA PRAX® MOBILE MONITOR (PC panel) with INTEL CPU Core i3, 15" TFT color monitor and Windows® 10. The EEG amplifier is the THERA PRAX® DC-EEG Amplifier with 13 unipolar channels with an input impedance of < 10 GΩ, digitized with 24-bit-resolution and a sampling rate of 256/s. For skin preparation alcohol and abrasive gel (Nuprep Gel, D.O. Weaver, Aurora, CO), Ag/AgCl ring electrodes, covered with conductive paste (Ten20, D.O. Weaver) will be used. EEG, EOG and EMG data will be measured and stored by the THERA PRAX® system. The online processing of the measured EEG data during NF sessions uses a short-time Fourier-transformed moving average before the participants receive feedback on the monitor. As feedback, elements of a 15*15 grid picture selected by the participant were uncovered if the dynamic reward condition (with respect to Baseline B: EMGLOW ≤ B - 2.0 μV and Theta ≤ B + 3.0 μV and Beta ≥ B + 3.0 μV activity) is reached for 250 ms , respectively. The length of the time window analyzed in each case is 1 s which is shifted in steps of 40 ms.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The intake of medication or psychotherapeutic treatments and ICD-10 diagnosis are queried at T1, T2 and T3. These are recorded as control variables and are not exclusion criteria. The medication intake was kept constant during the NF training.
Training is based on the classic Theta-Beta-Ratio protocol, where the reward frequencies are fixed for the entire training group (Hao et al., 2022):
Frequency bands with fixed division:
Theta 4 - 8 Hz
Alpha 8 - 13 Hz
Beta 13 - 30 Hz
Gamma 30 - 45 Hz
Reward frequencies are adjusted based on the child's iAPF to create a customized training protocol:
Calculation of the frequency bands using T1-iAPF (Hao et al., 2022):
Frequency bands with individual division:
Theta 4 - 0.8 * iAPF Hz
Alpha 0.8 * iAPF - 1.3 * iAPF Hz
Beta 1.3 * iAPF - 3.0 * iAPF Hz
Gamma 3.0 * iAPF - 45 Hz
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, during week 5 and 6 after each neurofeedback session (intervention), post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Effects that lead to symptom enhancements, as well as negative side effects of the neurofeedback training, are considered as adverse effects. The absence of adverse effects is one indicator of feasibility.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, during week 5 and 6 after each neurofeedback session (intervention), post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
The rate of participants discontinuing the neurofeedback training and study participation is measured. The drop-out rate is one indicator (acceptability) of feasibility.
Time frame: During week 5 and 6 after each neurofeedback session (intervention)
The continuous EEG recorded during active neurofeedback training is scanned offline for artefacts, and the proportion of artefact-free segments is considered as an indicator of data quality (and thus feasibility) during neurofeedback training.
Higher numbers of included segments indicate a larger amount of artifact-free data, suggesting higher data quality.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Parent- and teacher-reported total score of ADHD symptoms, inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity. It also captures functional impairment and distress. These can be used to determine whether or not the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis are met.
In the analysis of this study, the scales for the three cardinal symptoms: inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity and the total ADHD symptom score will be focussed. The subscales consist of 9 items (inattention) and 11 items (hyperactivity-impulsivity), which are rated between the categories 0 = "not accurate at all" and 3 = "especially accurate". Point-values between 0 and 27 can be reached for inattention and between 0 and 33 for hyperactivity/impulsivity. The total ADHD score uses the 20 items of both subscales and though can reach point-values between 0 and 60. The scales' scores show an increase in severity of symptoms (inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and total ADHD) as the point-values increase.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Parent report questionnaire for assessing attention problems, with help of the two symptom groups: inattention and impulsivity/hyperactivity.
The analyses are carried out primarily with the total score of the scale.
The subscale attention problems contains 10 items with answer categories ranging from 0 = "not correct" to 2 = "absolutely correct", resulting in point-values ranging from 0 to 20.
Because a separate previous study with the same questionnaires showed particular predictivity in the Child Behavior Checklist with certain 7 items, the analyses are calculated again with the shortened version on inattention (point-values: 0-14). The scales' scores show an increase in severity of inattention symptoms as the point-values increase.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Teacher Report questionnaire investigating attention problems divided into inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The analyses are carried out primarily with the total score of the scale.
For assessing inattention, the scale uses 14 items with answer categories ranging from 0 = "not correct" to 2 = "absolutely correct", resulting in point-values ranging from 0 to 28. Hyperactivity/Impulsivity is assessed with 12 items and the same answer categories, resulting in possible point-values between 0 and 24.
Because a separate previous study with the same questionnaires showed particular predictivity in TRF with certain 7 items, the analyses are calculated again with the shortened version on inattention (point-values: 0-14). The scales' scores show an increase in severity of inattention symptoms as the point-values increase.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Self-report for children assessing attention problems divided into inattention and impulsivity/hyperactivity. The analyses are carried out primarily with the total score of the scale.
The YSR will be used for children upon the age of 6 years, as the previous study showed usability for children under the age of 11 years.
The subscale attention problems contains 9 items with answer categories ranging from 0 = "not correct" to 2 = "absolutely correct", resulting in point-values ranging from 0 to 18.
Because a separate previous study with the same questionnaires showed particular predictivity in YSR with certain 7 items, the analyses are calculated again with the shortened version on inattention (point-values: 0-14). The scales' scores show an increase in severity of inattention symptoms as the point-values increase.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Quantitative EEG: 10 min. (5 min. eyes opened, 5 min. eyes closed):
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Parent questionnaire to assess two main indices (Behavioral and Cognitive Regulation Indices), which form the Global Executive Composite Score. The items of this questionnaire are rated within three answer categories ranging from 1 = "never" to 3 = "often".
The Global Executive Composite Score consists of 86 (point-values: 86-258. The Behavioral Regulation Index contains 28 items (point-values: 28-84), whereas the Cognitive Regulation Index includes 44 items (point-values: 44-132).
Higher scores indicate increasing problems with behavioral and cognitive regulation and overall executive functions.
Time frame: Baseline at week 1, post-measurement at week 10, follow-up-measurement at week 30
Computerized attention test for objective measurement of Reaction Times and Variability, Commission Errors and Omission Errors.
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Luisa Himmelmeier, M.Sc. Psychology
CONTACT
Sarah Lühr, M.Sc. Psychology
CONTACT
Bielefeld University
Other
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06797570
ADD, ADHD
View Trial DetailsNCT01239030
ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT01269463
ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
Irvine, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02642666
ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
Sacramento, California, United States
View Trial Details