Search

Background: Tinnitus is a particularly common condition and can have debilitating psychological consequences for certain people. Although several interventions have been helpful in teaching individuals to better cope with tinnitus, no cure exists at present. Neurofeedback is an emerging treatment modality in tinnitus. Previous studies, utilising an alpha/delta training protocol, have shown promise. However, they were characterised by small sample sizes and a lack of neurofeedback control conditions. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether an alpha/delta neurofeedback training protocol, compared to beta/theta neurofeedback or a diary control group, is effective in reducing not only the tinnitus sound perception but also the psychological symptoms associated with the condition., Methods: The study is designed as a three-armed randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomly assigned to a) an established neurofeedback protocol for tinnitus (alpha/delta training), b) an active control group (beta/theta training) or c) a diary control group. In the 4-week intervention period, participants in both neurofeedback groups undergo 10 sessions, whereas participants in the diary control group complete a bi-weekly diary. The primary outcomes are between group differences in tinnitus sound perception change, as measured with the Tinnitus Magnitude Index (TMI), and changes in tinnitus distress, measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), 4 weeks after the start of the intervention. Secondary outcome measures include changes in tinnitus distress, sleep quality, depressive symptoms and whether neurofeedback leads to specific power changes in the trained frequency bands., Discussion: This is the first randomised controlled trial examining the efficacy of an alpha/delta neurofeedback training protocol in reducing tinnitus sound perception and the distress associated with the condition. Compared to former studies, the present study is designed to assess both the specificity of an alpha/delta neurofeedback training protocol by including an active comparator and beta/theta neurofeedback training, in addition to controlling for placebo effects by the inclusion of a diary control group. This study aims to contribute to an understanding of the influences of both specific and non-specific effects in neurofeedback treatment for tinnitus., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03550430. Registered on 27 May 2018.

Background: Many studies suggest that electroencephalographic (EEG) neurofeedback might be beneficial in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, numbers of well controlled studies are low and neurofeedback techniques are regarded as highly controversial. The present trial examined the efficacy (compared with sham neurofeedback) and efficiency (compared with meta-cognitive therapy) of a standard EEG neurofeedback protocol in adults with ADHD., Methods: We did a concurrent, triple-blind, randomised, controlled trial using authorised deception in adults with ADHD from one centre (University of Tübingen) in Tübingen, Germany. Participants were eligible if they fulfilled the DSM-IV-TR criteria for ADHD, were aged between 18 years and 60 years, and had no or stable use of medication for at least 2 months with no intention to change. We excluded participants who had comorbid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, epilepsy, or traumatic brain injury; substance abuse or dependence; or current or planned other psychological treatment. Those eligible were randomly assigned to three groups: a neurofeedback group which received 30 verum θ-to-β neurofeedback sessions over 15 weeks, a sham neurofeedback group which received 15 sham followed by 15 verum θ-to-β neurofeedback sessions over 15 weeks, or a meta-cognitive group therapy group which received 12 sessions over 12 weeks. Participants were assigned equally to one of the three interventions through a computerised minimisation randomisation procedure stratified by sex, age, and baseline symptom severity of ADHD. Participants were masked as to whether they were receiving neurofeedback or sham neurofeedback, but those receiving meta-cognitive therapy were aware of their treatment. Clinical assessors (ie, those assessing outcomes) and research staff who did the neurofeedback training were masked to participants' randomisation status only for neurofeedback and sham neurofeedback. The primary outcome was symptom score on the Conners' adult ADHD rating scale, assessed before treatment, at midtreatment (after 8 weeks), after treatment (after 16 weeks), and 6 months later. All individuals with at least one observation after randomisation were included in the analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01883765., Findings: Between Feb 1, 2013, and Dec 1, 2015, 761 people were assessed for eligibility. 656 (86%) were excluded and 118 (15%) were eligible for participation in this study. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to neurofeedback (38 [32%]), sham neurofeedback (39 [33%]), or meta-cognitive therapy (41 [35%]). 37 (97%) individuals for neurofeedback, 38 (97%) for sham neurofeedback, and 38 (93%) for meta-cognitive therapy were included in analyses. Self-reported ADHD symptoms decreased substantially for all treatment groups (B=-2·58 [95% CI -3·48 to -1·68]; p<0·0001) between pretreatment and the end of 6 month follow-up, independent of treatment condition (neurofeedback vs sham neurofeedback B=-0·89 [95% CI -2·14 to 0·37], p=0·168; neurofeedback vs meta-cognitive therapy -0·30 [-1·55 to 0·95], p=0·639). No treatment-related or trial-related serious adverse events were reported., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that neurofeedback training is not superior to a sham condition or group psychotherapy. All three treatments were equivalently effective in reducing ADHD symptoms. This first randomised, sham-controlled trial did not show any specific effects of neurofeedback on ADHD symptoms in adults., Funding: German Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neurofeedback has been applied effectively in various areas, especially in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study protocol is designed to investigate the effect of slow cortical potential (SCP) feedback and a new form of neurofeedback using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) on symptomatology and neurophysiological parameters in an adult ADHD population. A comparison of SCP and NIRS feedback therapy methods has not been previously conducted and may yield valuable findings about alternative treatments for adult ADHD., Methods/design: The outcome of both neurofeedback techniques will be assessed over 30 treatment sessions and after a 6-month follow-up period, and then will be compared to a nonspecific biofeedback treatment. Furthermore, to investigate if treatment effects in this proof-of-principle study can be predicted by specific neurophysiological baseline parameters, regression models will be applied. Finally, a comparison with healthy controls will be conducted to evaluate deviant pretraining neurophysiological parameters, stability of assessment measures, and treatment outcome., Discussion: To date, an investigation and comparison of SCP and NIRS feedback training to an active control has not been conducted; therefore, we hope to gain valuable insights in effects and differences of these types of treatment for ADHD in adults., Trial Registration: This study is registered with the German Registry of Clinical Trials: DRKS00006767 , date of registration: 8 October 2014.