Linking alpha oscillations, attention and inhibitory control in adult ADHD with EEG neurofeedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormal patterns of electrical oscillatory activity have been repeatedly described in adult ADHD. In particular, the alpha rhythm (8-12 Hz), known to be modulated during attention, has previously been considered as candidate biomarker for ADHD. In the present study, we asked adult ADHD patients to self-regulate their own alpha rhythm using neurofeedback (NFB), in order to examine the modulation of alpha oscillations on attentional performance and brain plasticity. Twenty-five adult ADHD patients and 22 healthy controls underwent a 64-channel EEG-recording at resting-state and during a Go/NoGo task, before and after a 30 min-NFB session designed to reduce (desynchronize) the power of the alpha rhythm. Alpha power was compared across conditions and groups, and the effects of NFB were statistically assessed by comparing behavioral and EEG measures pre-to-post NFB. Firstly, we found that relative alpha power was attenuated in our ADHD cohort compared to control subjects at baseline and across experimental conditions, suggesting a signature of cortical hyper-activation. Both groups demonstrated a significant and targeted reduction of alpha power during NFB. Interestingly, we observed a post-NFB increase in resting-state alpha (i.e. rebound) in the ADHD group, which restored alpha power towards levels of the normal population. Importantly, the degree of post-NFB alpha normalization during the Go/NoGo task correlated with individual improvements in motor inhibition (i.e. reduced commission errors) only in the ADHD group. Overall, our findings offer novel supporting evidence implicating alpha oscillations in inhibitory control, as well as their potential role in the homeostatic regulation of cortical excitatory/inhibitory balance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".