ArticleApplied psychophysiology and biofeedback2026
Learning in Neurofeedback is Heterogenous and Does Not Guarantee ADHD Symptom Improvement.
Article in Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurofeedback (NFB) is a non-invasive intervention for ADHD that aims to train self-regulation of brain activity. Despite decades of clinical application, evidence for its efficacy remains mixed, and the mechanisms-particularly the role of NFB learning in ADHD symptom reduction-are still not well understood. This study advances the NFB field by introducing both theoretically grounded and data-driven frameworks that conceptualize learning as a dynamic, individualized process. Data were drawn from a 25-month longitudinal randomized controlled trial of theta/beta ratio (TBR) NFB treatment in children with ADHD (N = 100; ages 7-10). Moving beyond prior work that characterized learning through binary classifications and group-level averages, we captured within- and between-session training dynamics and applied clustering methods to define distinct learner profiles, highlighting the heterogeneous nature of NFB responses. Our results demonstrate that while most participants learned to regulate TBR effectively, individual learning did not reliably predict symptom improvement. Instead, linear mixed-effects model results indicated that non-specific factors such as participant engagement and training context were more predictive of clinical outcomes. Moreover, variability in learning curve shapes-typically overlooked in standard NFB studies-suggests that NFB learning does not follow a uniform pattern, with individuals engaging through distinct mechanisms aligned with either operant-conditioning or skill-acquisition models. These insights advance theoretical understanding of NFB mechanisms and call for individualized, mechanism-informed approaches to optimize treatment outcomes and deepen clinical interpretation.
Identifiers
41758299What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.