EEG Biofeedback Training for Attention Deficit Disorder: A Review of Recent Controlled Studies and Clinical Findings Siegfried Othmer, Ph.D., David Kaiser, Ph.D., and Susan F. Othmer, B.A. June, 1995 Page 1 of 3 Next

Introduction and Summary   Recent Findings   Experimental Results

INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY
One of the fastest-growing applications of biofeedback at the present time is the use of EEG biofeedback for the remediation of attention deficits ( Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD), related behavioral disorders, and specific learning disabilities. This is happening largely on the basis of the continuing work of Joel and Judith Lubar, of Michael Tansey, and of a growing core of clinicians. The knowledge base is expanding primarily through increasing clinical use of the technique, rather than through controlled research. The lack of contemporary, large, suitably controlled studies has, however, inhibited acceptance within the larger psychological, psychiatric, and educational communities.

Efficacy of the EEG training for ADHD has been ascribed variously to remediation of the underlying condition of physiological underarousal manifesting in hyperactivity (Lubar, 1976); to addressing the motor component of hyperactivity by changing the set-point of the motor system with training at sensorimotor cortex [the same mechanism proposed for motor seizures (Sterman, 1980)], or by training the supplementary motor area responsible for the initiation of movement (Tansey, 1990); and to remediation of disregulation of arousal manifesting variously in inattention or behavioral disinhibition (Othmer, 1994). The validity of one of these mechanisms does not rule out validity for another. Indeed, they may each be responsible for addressing some aspect of ADHD symptomatology.

In the following, some recent studies will be briefly reviewed, and a statistical analysis of data coming out of current clinical practice will be presented. The clinical findings leave the matter of efficacy for ADHD beyond any reasonable doubt. The results are so robust that they cannot be attributed to a placebo effect, or other nonspecific effect of the training. However, the controlled studies to date have been much more ambiguous in their outcomes. Some possible explanations of these differences are presented.