Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
May 22, 2025
Background
A meta-analysis examined whether noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could help reduce core symptoms of ADHD and improve cognitive function. NIBS refers to techniques that stimulate brain activity using low electrical or magnetic currents applied from outside the head. They studied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), while newer methods like tRNS (random noise) and tACS (alternating current) lacked enough studies to be included in the analysis.
Methods
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—considered the gold standard in clinical research—were included in the review. For tDCS, the results were promising:
-A meta-analysis of 12 studies (582 participants) showed small but statistically significant improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to stop or delay responses).
-Nine studies (390 participants) showed small-to-medium improvements in working memory.
-Two smaller studies (94 participants) hinted at improvement in cognitive flexibility, but the results were not strong enough to be considered reliable.
-Seven studies (277 participants) found medium-to-large improvements in linattention, though results varied significantly between studies.
Hyperactivity and impulsivity showed some improvement, but again, the number of studies was too small to draw firm conclusions.
For rTMS, however, the results were not as encouraging. A meta-analysis of three studies (137 participants) found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms.
Conclusion
While the results suggest that tDCS may offer some benefit for executive functions and attention in people with ADHD—especially when targeting specific brain areas like the F3/F4 regions (roughly over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)—the authors emphasize the need for further research. Most studies didn’t include long-term follow-up, and there’s still a lack of consistency in how stimulation is applied across studies. Moreover, even when positive findings emerged for executive functions is not clear how these translate into changes that are meaningful for the patient.
Importantly, this study doesn’t suggest that NIBS should replace standard treatments. Although the paper highlights challenges with medication adherence and side effects, ADHD medications and behavior therapies remain the most well-established and effective treatments for most patients. The improvements seen with NIBS so far are relatively small and preliminary in comparison.
Instead, the findings support the idea that NIBS could one day serve as a complementary tool—especially for individuals who don’t respond well to existing treatments. But until more rigorous and long-term studies are done, NIBS should be viewed as an experimental approach, not a substitute.
Yao Yin, Xueke Wang, and Tingyong Feng, “Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Improving Cognitive Deficits and Clinical Symptoms in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Brain Sciences (2024), 14, 1237, https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14121237.
It sounds like science fiction, but scientists have been testing computerized methods to train the brains of ADHD people to reduce both ADHD symptoms and cognitive deficits such as difficulties with memory or attention.
Two main approaches have been used: cognitive training and neurofeedback. Cognitive training methods ask patients to practice tasks aimed at teaching specific skills, such as retaining information in memory or inhibiting impulsive responses.
Currently, results from ADHD brain studies suggest that the ADHD brain is not very different from the non-ADHD brain, but that ADHD leads to small differences in the structure, organization, and functioning of the brain. The idea behind cognitive training is that the brain can be reorganized to accomplish tasks through a structured learning process. Cognitive retraining helps people who have suffered brain damage, so it was logical to think it might help the types of brain differences seen in ADHD people. Several software packages have been created to deliver cognitive training sessions to ADHD people.
Neurofeedback was applied to ADHD after it had been observed, in many studies, that people with ADHD have unusual brain waves as measured by the electroencephalogram (EEG). We believe that these unusual brain waves are caused by the different ways that the ADHD brain processes information. Because these differences lead to problems with memory, attention, inhibiting responses, and other areas of cognition and behavior, it was believed that normalizing the brain waves might reduce ADHD symptoms.
In a neurofeedback session, patients sit with a computer that reads their brain waves via wires connected to their heads. The patient is asked to do a task on the computer that is known to produce a specific type of brain wave. The computer gives feedback via sound or a visual on the computer screen that tells the patient how 'normal' their brainwaves are. By modifying their behavior, patients learn to change their brain waves. The method is called neurofeedback because it gives patients direct feedback about how their brains are processing information.
Both cognitive training and neurofeedback have been extensively studied. If you've been reading my blogs about ADHD, you know that I play by the rules of evidence-based medicine. My view is that the only way to be sure that a treatment works is to see what researchers have published in scientific journals. The highest level of evidence is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. This ensures that many rigorous studies have been conducted and summarized with a sophisticated mathematical method.
Although both cognitive training and neurofeedback are rational methods based on good science, meta-analyses suggest that they do not help reduce ADHD symptoms. They may be helpful for specific problems, such as problems with memory, but more work is needed to be certain if that is true. The future may bring better news about these methods if they are modified and become more effective. You can learn more about non-pharmacologic treatment for ADHD from a book I recently edited: Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.
ADHD is hypothesized to arise from 1) poor inhibitory control resulting from impaired executive functions which are associated with reduced activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and increased activation of some subcortical regions; and 2)hyperarousal to environmental stimuli, hampering the ability of the executive functioning system, particularly the medial frontal cortex, orbital and ventromedial prefrontal areas, and subcortical regions such as the caudate nucleus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and thalamus, to control the respective stimuli.
These brain anomalies, rendered visible through magnetic resonance imaging, have led researchers to try new means of treatment to directly address the deficits. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a weak electrical current to stimulate specific regions of the brain.
Efficacy:
A team of researchers from Europe and ran performed a systematic search of the literature and identified fourteen studies exploring the safety and efficacy of tDCS. Three of these studies examined the effects on ADHD symptoms. They found a large effect size for the inattention subscale and a medium effect size for the hyperactivity/impulsivity. Yet, as the authors cautioned, "a definite conclusion concerning the clinical efficacy of tDCS based on the results of these three studies is not possible."
The remaining studies investigated the effects on specific neuropsychological and cognitive deficits in ADHD:
The fact that heterogeneity in the methodology of these studies made meta-analysis impossible means these results, while promising, cannot be seen as in any way definitive.
Safety:
Ten studies examined childhood ADHD. Three found no adverse effects either during or after tDCS. One study reported a feeling of "shock" in a few patients during tDCS. Several more reported skin tingling and itching during tDCS. Several also reported mild headaches.
The four studies of adults with ADHD reported no major adverse events. One study reported a single incident of acute mood change, sadness, diminished motivation, and tension five hours after stimulation. Another reported mild instances of skin tingling and burning sensations.
To address side effects such as tingling and itching, the authors suggested reducing the intensity of the electrical current and increasing the duration. They also suggested placing electrodes at least 6 cm apart to reduce current shunting through the ski. For children, they recommended the use of smaller electrodes for better focus in smaller brains.
The authors concluded, "The findings of this systematic review suggest at least a partial improvement of symptoms and cognitive deficits in ADHD by tDCS. They further suggest that stimulation parameters such as polarity and site are relevant to the efficacy of tDCS in ADHD. Compared to cathodal stimulation, Anodal tDCS seems to have a superior effect on both the clinical symptoms and cognitive deficits. However, the routine clinical application of this method as an efficient therapeutic intervention cannot yet be recommended based on these studies ..."
A two-year study examined the effect of digital media use on ADHD symptoms in over 2500 adolescents. An earlier meta-analysis found that traditional media use (TV and video console games) was modestly associated with ADHD-like behaviors (Nikkelen et al 2014). The current study extends the examination to a large sample, with modern digital media delivery of high-intensity stimuli, including mobile platforms.
The authors used the Current Symptom Self-Report Scale (Barkley R 1998) to establish ADHD symptoms at baseline and six-month assessments over 24 months. None of the subjects reported having ADHD, study entry. Subjects were considered to be ADHD symptom-positive (the primary binary outcome) if they had greater than or equal to six inattentive and/or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms rated on this frequency-based scale (0-3). Modern digital media use was surveyed on a frequency basis for 14 media activities(including checking social media sites, texting, browsing, downloading or streaming music, posting pictures, online chatting, playing games, online shopping, and video chatting). The most common media activity was the high-frequency checking of social media. Of note, high-frequency engagement in each of the digital media activities was significantly, but moderately, associated with having ADHD symptoms at each six-month follow-up (OR 1.10), even after adjusting for covariates. High-frequency media use at baseline seemed to be associated with the development of ADHD symptoms.
Among the 495 students who reported no high-frequency media use at baseline, 4.6% met ADHD symptom criteria at follow-up. Among 114 students scoring 7 for high-frequency media use at baseline, 9.5% met the symptoms criteria. For the 51 students with a score of 14 for high-frequency media use at baseline, the rate was 10.5% (both comparisons were statistically significant).
This study is important in that it notes that an association between high-frequency digital media use (in current platforms and modalities) may be associated with the development of ADHD-like symptoms. A significant limitation of the study, as noted by the authors, is that ADHD-like symptoms do not establish a diagnosis of ADHD and do not assess impairment; therefore, these results must be interpreted with some caution. It does highlight that even with the current level of understanding, it might be prudent for clinicians to recommend limiting high-frequency media use for adolescent patients.
Antidepressants are the primary drug treatment for depressive disorders, which affect 15–20% of pregnant women. They are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, and their use has increased in recent decades. Understanding their reproductive safety is critical to support informed, evidence-based prescribing during pregnancy.
A new meta-analysis sheds important light on one of the most debated concerns: whether children born to mothers who took antidepressants during pregnancy face a higher risk of ADHD.
The Study:
Pooling 14 studies covering more than 14 million participants, the analysis found that prenatal antidepressant exposure was associated with a 35% higher rate of ADHD in offspring compared to no exposure. A separate look at SSRIs (the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, including Prozac and Zoloft) across 11 studies and over four million pregnancies found an even higher apparent risk (44%) after correcting for publication bias. On the surface, these are striking numbers.
Both associations came with an important caveat: enormous variation between individual studies, a statistical red flag suggesting the results may not reflect a true underlying effect. More tellingly, the apparent risk evaporated entirely when researchers applied a more rigorous method — comparing siblings within the same family, where one child was exposed to antidepressants in the womb, and another was not.
This sibling-comparison design is particularly powerful because it automatically controls for factors that run in families: shared genes, household environment, parenting, and socioeconomic conditions. When those influences are held constant, the link between antidepressant exposure and ADHD disappears. The same pattern held for SSRIs specifically.
Two other antidepressant classes, SNRIs (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and tricyclics, showed no significant association in any analysis.
“Confounding by Indication”:
The probable driver of the initial association is what researchers call confounding by indication. The very condition being treated (depression) is itself a risk factor for ADHD in offspring, independently of any medication. Mothers with more severe depression are also more likely to be prescribed antidepressants, meaning the drug and the underlying illness are difficult to disentangle in standard analyses. Sibling studies cut through this problem cleanly.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that the association between antidepressants and ADHD risk was non-significant across all analyses designed to account for these confounding factors. This doesn’t mean antidepressants are without any reproductive considerations, but it does suggest that ADHD risk, at least, is driven by heritable and family-level factors rather than medication exposure itself.
For clinicians and patients weighing the risks of treating or not treating depression during pregnancy, this distinction matters considerably.
Executive functions are the mental processes that allow us to plan, adapt, and follow through. This encompasses working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, goal-directed planning, and problem-solving. In people with ADHD, weaknesses in these areas compound the disorder's core symptoms, making it substantially harder to manage complex, real-world demands.
Background:
Medication remains the frontline clinical response. Stimulant medications can meaningfully reduce both executive function deficits and ADHD symptoms, and are often combined with behavioral or psychological therapies for better overall outcomes.
Medication, however, is not entirely without risk of side effects. These risks have spurred interest in new, non-pharmacological alternatives that target the same neural pathways. One of these new therapies is Computerized Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CCRT). This therapy uses digital programs delivered via computer, tablet, or smartphone that train attention, memory, and inhibitory control through structured cognitive exercises. A key feature of many CCRT platforms is adaptive difficulty: tasks adjust in real time to match the child’s current ability, keeping training both challenging and engaging.
The Study:
Despite this promise, the evidence base in younger populations has been limited. This meta-analysis pooled results from randomized controlled trials enrolling participants under 18 who either carried an ADHD diagnosis or scored above the threshold on a validated rating scale. Comparators included no treatment (waitlist), placebo (pharmacological or psychological), or treatment as usual. The primary outcomes (overall executive function and clinical symptom severity) were assessed via questionnaires and neuropsychological testing. Studies including participants with comorbid autism, tic disorders, epilepsy, or other psychiatric conditions were excluded.
The findings were informative, but overall results were mixed. CCRT produced a small but statistically meaningful reduction in inattention symptoms across 13 studies (885 participants), with consistent results across individual trials and no evidence of publication bias. However, it had no detectable effect on hyperactivity and impulsivity (12 studies, 833 participants) or on total ADHD symptom burden (10 studies, 731 participants).
The picture was more encouraging for executive function. Nine studies (500 participants) showed small overall improvements, with specific gains in working memory (454 participants), inhibitory control (428 participants), and planning (6 studies, 335 participants). Emotional control showed no significant change (5 studies, 265 participants), nor did cognitive flexibility (4 studies, 189 participants).
The Take-Away:
Taken together, these results are modest rather than transformative, but context matters. CCRT is low-cost, digitally scalable, and carries negligible side effects. For a population where medication often comes with a significant burden of adverse reactions, even small, reliable improvements in executive function represent a meaningful clinical option.
The evidence positions CCRT not as a replacement for established treatments, but as a practical and well-tolerated addition to the therapeutic toolkit for children and adolescents with ADHD.
Methylphenidate is an effective treatment for ADHD in adults who also have bipolar disorder (BD), but it carries a potential risk of triggering manic episodes. Current guidelines therefore recommend using it only alongside mood-stabilizing medication. A new study using French nationwide claims data sought to test and extend those recommendations with greater statistical power than previous research.
The study built on findings by Viktorin et al. (2017), who observed that adults with BD not taking mood stabilizers had more than a sixfold higher risk of manic events (defined as hospitalization for mania or a new antimanic prescription) within six months of starting methylphenidate. Patients on mood-stabilizing treatment, by contrast, showed nearly half the baseline risk in the first three months. Those findings were limited, however, by small event counts (fewer than 61 manic episodes) and an effect that did not persist beyond the initial three-month window.
To build on this, researchers drew on the French National Health Data System (which is a claims database covering more than 60 million people) spanning 2008 to 2024. The final sample included 6,022 adults with BD (56% women) who had started methylphenidate. Using a self-controlled design, the study compared each patient's rate of manic events in the six months before their first methylphenidate prescription with the rate in the six months after, effectively eliminating stable individual differences as a confound.
Patients were classified as receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment if they had been dispensed at least two courses of specific antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine) or mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate) in the nine months before starting methylphenidate, including at least one dispensation in the final six months of that window.
The results largely confirmed the earlier findings. Among the 2,745 patients not on mood stabilizers, the rate of inpatient mania diagnosis was 5.1 times higher in the first three months after starting methylphenidate, though this elevation fell to a non-significant level over the subsequent three months. Patients receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment showed no statistically significant change in mania risk across the full six-month post-initiation period. A formulation-specific pattern also emerged: patients without mood-stabilizing treatment had a 2.5-fold higher risk associated with extended-release methylphenidate, while no significant risk increase was seen with the immediate-release formulation or in treated patients regardless of formulation.
The authors conclude that methylphenidate at doses below 30 mg does not appear to elevate manic relapse risk when prescribed alongside mood stabilizers. The elevated risk seen in untreated patients, particularly with extended-release formulations, must be interpreted cautiously, given limited statistical power and the likelihood that it partly reflects the natural fluctuation of manic relapse over time. The authors flag this as an inherent limitation of self-controlled survival analyses when studying drug-induced mania, where temporal trends in the underlying condition can be difficult to disentangle from treatment effects.
_logo%201.svg)
