The Effects of Exergaming on Attention in Children With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence showing the effects of exercise and cognitive trainings on enhancing attention, little is known about the combined effects of exergame on attention in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Exergame, a form of exercise using a video game, has both cognitive stimulation and physical activity components and has been shown to improve cognitive function in children. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of exergaming on attention and to compare the effect induced by exergaming with the effect of aerobic exercise on attention in children with ADHD. METHODS: In all, 30 children with ADHD, aged 8-12 years, were randomly divided into an exergaming group (EXG; n=16) or a bicycle exercise group (BEG; n=14). Before and after the 4-week intervention, the Frankfurter Aufmerksamkeits-Inventar (FAIR; Frankfurt Attention Inventory) test was administrated, and event-related potentials during the Go/No-go task was measured to assess attention. RESULTS: After intervention, both the EXG and BEG had significantly increased selective attention and continuous attention (all P<.001), as well as self-control on the FAIR test (EXG: P=.02 and BEG: P=.005). Similarly, both the EXG and BEG had significantly reduced response time on the Go/No-go test (all P<.001). For the Go response, the N2 amplitude (frontocentral maximal negativity) was significantly increased in Fz (midfrontal line) in the EXG (P=.003) but was not changed in the BEG (P=.97). Importantly, the N2 amplitude in Fz was significantly greater in the EXG compared to the BEG (Go: P=.001 and No-go: P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Exergaming has the comparable effects to bicycle exercise to enhance attention in children with ADHD, suggesting that exergaming can be used as an alternative treatment for children with ADHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0008239; https://tinyurl.com/57e4jtnb.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".