Browsing by Author "Veilahti, Antti"

Aims Studies on the efficacy of NF training of ADHD patients have given ambiguous results because most randomly controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to establish its effect in the entire ADD/ADHD-population, treating it as a uniform group. This study addresses whether those who do and do not learn to self-regulate based on NF training differ in terms of ADHD related outcomes and whether the two groups could be identified in advance. Secondly, the study asks whether ’learning’ to succeed in NF training exercises is a sufficient or necessary condition for the effects of NF training on ADHD symptoms. Methods By studying existing data from 23 patients with ages between 25 and 57 and who were trained in the CENT project, the learners and non-learners were first identified by a regression model. The two groups were subsequently compared in terms of several background variables as well as behavioral and self-reported ADHD related outcomes. Moreover, the learning processes in the two groups were analysed by using continuous time structural equations modeling (CTSEM). Results One of the most important predictors of NF learning appeared to be low score in the dissociative experiences scale (DES) and high score in the behavioral inhibition scale (BIS). At the same time, NF learning was enhanced by elevated scores on the generalised anxiety disorder scale (GAD). However, the behavioral effects were mixed among the ‘learners’ and ‘non-learners’, with some positive and some negative effects visible in both groups. Conclusions The study concludes that patients’ ability to learn to self-regulate according to NF data does not appear to be a necessary nor sufficient condition for positive ADHD-related outcomes. This supports the conclusion that the effects of NF training are not solely based on operant conditioning but that the learning processes involved in NF training are more complex. The study suggests that more research should be done regarding the specific role of DES, with possible reference to different neurological mechanisms associated with different classes of symptoms (e.g. inattention and hyperactivity), and possibly explaining the mixed results of RCTs.