Training for Success in a Child with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a case study to illustrate how children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be assessed and successfully trained using neurofeedback. There is established efficacy for using neurofeedback to treat ADHD (Arns, De Ridder, Strehl, Breteler, & Coenen, 2009; Gani, Birbaumer, & Strehl, 2009; Gevensleben et al., 2009). Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics gave biofeedback Level 1 efficacy in its 2012 review (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012), the same level of efficacy as is given to medications. The other condition that has sufficient randomized controlled studies to establish efficacy for electroencephalogram biofeedback is epilepsy (Tan et al., 2009). This case is presented to share techniques that will help clinicians conduct neurofeedback appropriately so that good results are obtained. The future of our field depends on every practitioner doing a quality job with excellent outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".