Cited by 52Child Abuse and TraumaPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

The impact of neurofeedback training on children with developmental trauma: a randomized controlled study

Rogel, Ainat, Loomis, Alysse M., Hamlin, Ed, Hodgdon, Hilary, Spinazzola, Joseph, van der Kolk, Bessel·2020·Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Developmental trauma or chronic early childhood exposure to abuse and neglect by caregivers has been shown to have a long-lasting pervasive impact on mental and neural development, including problems with attention, impulse control, self-regulation, and executive functioning. Its long-term effects are arguably the costliest public health challenge in the United States. Children with developmental trauma rarely have a satisfactory response to currently available evidence-based psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments. Neurofeedback training (NFT) is a clinical application of brain computer interface technology, aiming to alter electrical brain activity associated with various mental dysfunctions. NFT has shown promise to improve posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. METHOD: = 17). Both groups underwent 4 assessments during equivalent timelines. The active group received 24 NFT sessions twice a week. RESULTS: This pilot study demonstrated that 24 sessions of NFT significantly decreased PTSD symptoms, internalizing, externalizing, other behavioral and emotional symptoms, and significantly improved the executive functioning of children aged 6-13 years with severe histories of abuse and neglect who had not significantly benefited from any previous therapy. CONCLUSIONS: NFT offers the possibility to improve learning, enhance self-efficacy, and develop better social relationships in this hitherto largely treatment-resistant population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/tra0000648

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogel, A., Loomis, A. M., Hamlin, E., Hodgdon, H., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Justice Resource Institute (US)
Venue
Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy
Published
2020-11
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
918-929
ISSN
  • 1942-9681 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-969X
OpenAlex
W3042551899
Cited by
52
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
neurofeedback, developmental trauma, childhood abuse and neglect, post-traumatic stress disorder, executive function, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, children, self-regulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child Abuse, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Neurofeedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review