ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate EEG biofeedback therapy on clinical efficacy of children with different subtypes of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using the integrated visual and auditory integration continuous performance test (IVA-CPT).Methods:Children with ADHD who completed more than 60 times of EEG biofeedback training in Hangzhou Seventh People's Hospital from July 2018 to September 2020 were selected as the research subjects. According to the results of IAV-CPT before treatment, all the children were divided into three subtypes: attention deficit type ( n=21), impulse hyperactivity type ( n=11), and mixed type ( n=30). The differences of symptom improvement between the three subtypes before and after training were compared by SPSS 23.0 software. Results:(1) In terms of response control (a total of 9 items), there was no statistical significance in the attention deficit group before and after treatment (all P>0.05). In the hyperactivity group, the scores of visual and auditory response control, full scale response control, auditory prudence and auditory consistency, visual focus quotient and visual consistency before treatment were significantly lower than those after treatment(all P<0.05). In the mixed group, the scores of visual and auditory response control, full scale response control, auditory prudence, visual consistency, and visual prudence before treatment were significantly lower than those after treatment(all P<0.05). In terms of attention (a total of 9 items), the scores of auditory vigilance, auditory attention, visual attention, full scale attention, visual vigilance and visual speed in the attention deficit group before treatment were significantly lower than those after treatment(all P<0.05). The scores of visual attention, full scale attention, visual focus quotient (all P<0.01), auditory attention and visual speed (all P<0.05) in hyperactivity group before treatment were significantly lower than those after treatment. In the mixed group, the scores of the other 8 items before treatment were significantly lower than those after treatment (all P<0.01, auditory focus quotient were P<0.05), except that the auditory speed had no statistical significance before and after treatment.(2)After EEG biofeedback training, the changes of IVA-CPT scores of the three groups before and after treatment(visual response control (-2.76±24.39), (19.55±19.94), (12.93±25.30), F=3.932, P=0.025), (full scale response control (2.38±20.77), (21.27±15.86), (15.43±25.69), F=3.158, P=0.050), (full scale attention (18.43±27.44), (11.36±11.40), (26.23±18.41), F=4.692, P=0.016), (auditory vigilance (20.23±42.65), (6.55±10.20), (33.63±36.30), F=7.160, P=0.002), (visual vigilance (19.48±28.55), (5.27±10.62), (33.27±28.26), F=10.876, P<0.001), (visual focus quotient (-2.24±23.67), (14.45±13.79), (12.83±21.91), F=3.669, P=0.031) were statistically significant. After LSD comparison, the changes of visual control and total control scores in the attention deficit group before and after treatment were significantly lower than those in the impulse hyperactivity group (all P<0.05) and the mixed group (all P<0.05). In the three items of total attention score, auditory vigilance and visual vigilance, the changes of impulsivity hyperactivity group before and after treatment were significantly lower than those of mixed group ( P=0.050, P<0.05, P<0.01, respectively). The changes of visual attention quotient in the attention deficit group before and after treatment were significantly lower than those in the impulse hyperactivity group and the mixed group (all P<0.05). Conclusion:EEG biofeedback has clinical efficacy in the three groups of subtypes of ADHD, but the efficacy is different, and individualized EEG training programs should be developed for different subtypes of children on the basis of standard TBR therapy protocol.