Cited by 5Cerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The Effects of Neurofeedback Training for Children with Cerebral Palsy and Co-Occurring Attention Deficits: A Pilot Study

Chen, Yuh‐Chuan, Chang, Wen‐Pin, Liang, Kai‐Jie, Chen, Chia‐Ling, Chen, Hsin‐Yung, Chen, Shu‐Ping, Chan, Pei‐Ying S.·2024·Child: Care, Health and Development

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited research exists regarding the effectiveness of electroencephalogram (EEG) neurofeedback training for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and co-occurring attention deficits (ADs), despite the increasing prevalence of these dual conditions. This study aimed to fill this gap by examining the impact of neurofeedback training on the attention levels of children with CP and AD. METHODS: Nineteen children with both CP and co-occurring ADs were randomly assigned to either a neurofeedback or control group. The neurofeedback group received 20 sessions of training, lasting approximately 1 h per day, twice a week. Theta/beta ratios of the quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) recordings were measured pre-training and post-training in the resting state. The Continuous Performance Test (CPT), the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-3rd Version (TVPS-3) and the Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) were measured at pre- and post-training. RESULTS: The neurofeedback group showed both decreased theta/beta ratios compared with control group (p = 0.04) at post-training and a within-group improvement during training (p = 0.02). Additionally, the neurofeedback group had a trend of decreased omission rates of the CPT (p = 0.08) and the visual sequential memory and the visual closure subscores in the TVPS-3, compared with the control group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that children with CP and co-occurring AD may benefit from neurofeedback training in their attention level. Further research is needed to explore long-term effects and expand its application in this population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cch.13231

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Chen et al. [43] found significant group differences in only one component of the Conners CPT-II measure, showing some decrease in omission rates for the intervention group.

    “While this outcome would suggest an improvement in attentional control, significant group differences were observed in only one component of the Conners CPT-II measure, showing some decrease in omission rates for the intervention group [43].”
  • Chen et al. [43] found a significant between-group difference in beta/theta ratio at the conclusion of the neurofeedback intervention.

    “Analyses revealed a significant between-group difference in beta/theta ratio at the conclusion of the intervention [43].”
  • Chen et al. [43] found significant group differences for visuoperceptual skills, with the intervention group demonstrating significant improvement in visual sequential memory and visual closure compared to the control.

    “Finally, significant group differences were also observed for visuoperceptual skills, with the intervention group demonstrating significant improvement in visual sequential memory and visual closure compared to the control [43].”
  • Of the seven active intervention studies, all used randomization for allocation to groups.

    “Of the seven active intervention studies, all used randomization for allocation to groups [41,42,43,45,46,47,48].”
  • Of the five studies reporting information about participants' motor function ability, only two included participants with severe mobility impairment (GMFCS Level V).

    “Five studies reported information about participants’ motor function ability [42,43,44,45,47]. Of these, only two studies included participants with severe mobility impairment (GMFCS Level V) [42,47].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y., Chang, W., Liang, K., Chen, C., Chen, H., Chen, S., & Chan, P. S.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
  • The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (US)
  • Chang Gung University (TW)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Chen, Chia‐Ling
  • Chan, Pei‐Ying S.
Venue
Child: Care, Health and Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-30
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
e13231-e13231
ISSN
  • 0305-1862 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2214
OpenAlex
W4391390202
Cited by
5
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 5
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Care Health and Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Keywords
neurofeedback, cerebral palsy, attention deficits, children, theta/beta ratio, attentional control, visual sequential memory, visual closure, omission errors
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cerebral Palsy, Child, Electroencephalography, Humans, Pilot Projects, 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