Category — ADHD: Research

A study published in the June 14 edition of the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics has sparked controversy regarding ADHD medication and the brain’s power to regulate itself.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted by Dr. Adrian Sandler, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician and medical director of the Olson Huff Center for Child Development at Mission Children’s Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina.  The research was performed over the course of eight years using 99 patients from Western North Carolina.

Sandler found that children with ADHD can do just as well on half their medication when the medication is combined with a placebo. They performed as well even when parents and children had full knowledge they were taking a placebo.

[Placebo --  A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient's expectation to get well. The placebo in this research was akin to a harmless inert pill].

Previous studies have shown that common stimulant medication causes side-effects like tics, weight loss, stunted growth, and even heart complications in some instances. This often causes trepidation in parents afraid of the possible side-effects on their children.

Sandler compared fully medicated children, children on reduced medication, and children on reduced medication with a known placebo. The results were quite intriguing.  Both the fully medicated and reduced medication groups had increased side-effects while the reduced medication with placebo demonstrated decreased side-effects. Furthermore, the reduced medication group reported decreased control of their ADHD symptoms. However, the control of ADHD symptoms was no different in the reduced medication with placebo group than in the full dose group, i.e. the reduced medication with placebo performed as well as the fully medicated group with less side-effects as well.

“I’ve been getting a lot of calls and e-mails,” said Sandler,, who conducted the research with James Bodfish, a professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and study coordinator Corrine Glesne.

“Medications work,” Bodfish said in a statement. “The question is whether we always need to use them at the highest dose. Many parents are concerned about placing their child on medication. Some choose not to treat their child because of concerns about side effects.”

While the research doesn’t address it, the obvious question is, Why? Parents and children in this study knew they were taking a placebo. Why then did they perform as well as their peers without the side-effects — at essentially half the dose as their peers? While the placebo effect has been studied widely, the exact mechanisms are unknown. We do know that the mechanism is governed by the brain. This clearly tells us that having ADHD or not, our brain is still a powerful weapon in our arsenal.

We also cannot exclude the influence of the parents during this research. Did they expect their child to do better? The authors suggest that this was so. This dynamic cannot be overlooked in your family either.

The bottom line is that we likely have far more control over our behaviors and cognitive processes than we are given credit for. Modern medicine, as this research suggests, is just beginning to understand the brain’s role in shaping our lives. We’ve known this for years at Play Attention. Cognitive training. Memory training. Motor skills. Attention training. Behavioral shaping. It’s time to take control over our lives. We’ve all got the power to do it. It lies right behind our eyes.

Research published in the July issue of Pediatrics reveals that too much time spent watching television and playing video games can cause attention problems.

A graduate student at Iowa State University, Edward Swing, found that excessive screen time, whether in front of a computer or TV, could double the risk of attention problems in children and young adults.

Swing’s research confirms previous findings from Dr. Dimitri Christakis, the George Adkins Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle.  Christakis’ research found that faster-paced shows increased the risk of attention problems.  "You prime the mind to accept that pace. Real life doesn’t happen fast enough to keep your attention,” says Christakis.

The  American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has long recommended that children over the age of 2 view less than two hours of TV or computer per day. Prior to that age, they suggest no TV viewing or computer.

Swing compared data of 1300 children in grades three, four, and five who watched TV or played video games less than two hours a day to children who watched more.  He found that more video time could nearly double the risk of attention problems in children and young adults

"The children were reporting their TV and video game use and the parents were also reporting TV and video game use," Swing said. "The teachers were reporting attention problems," he said of the middle school students.

While both Swing’s and Christakis’ studies do merit attention, they are quite limited.  For example, Swing used teacher rating reports to assess whether children had problems paying attention, if they interrupted classmate’s work, if they had trouble staying on task, or showed problems in other areas related to inattention. Teacher reports typically vary over time and from teacher to teacher. They are also highly subjective. To account for this, Swing had more than one teacher rate the children and that the ratings tended to be in agreement.

The greatest flaw in this research is that Swing did not account for content, i.e. what were the students watching or playing? Were the students watching educational TV or playing educational games? Were they playing race car games? Shooting games? Were they playing problem solving games?  Were the games fast paced? Slow? Did they require reasoning skills? We’ll never know and that’s problematic because it leaves so many questions unanswered. As we are what we eat, we are what we stimulate ourselves with.

"These media aren’t going away," Christakis said. "We do have to find ways to manage them appropriately."  On this I can agree. Limiting time to the AAP recommendations is prudent parenting.

If I told you that women who received only basic education were 130 % more likely to have a child on ADHD medication than women with university degrees, you’d see a link, wouldn’t you? 

Well, that’s what a  study published this month in Acta Paediatrica found.  That implies that nearly half of the serious cases of ADHD  in children are closely tied to social factors. The study reveals that factors like single parenting and poor maternal education were directly tied to ADHD medication use.

While we know that a genetic propensity likely exists, the human brain develops based on a complex interplay between nature and nurture; between genetic endowment (nature) and environment/social factors (nurture). Epigenetic theory tries to explain this relationship.

Curiously, few large-scale studies have tried to determine the impact of social and family influences on ADHD. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden assessed data on 1.16 million school children and examined the health histories of nearly 8,000 Swedish-born kids, aged six to 19, who had taken ADHD medication.

"We tracked their record through other registers … to determine a number of other factors," said lead author Anders Hjern.

Here’s what the researchers found:

• Living in a single parent family increased the chances of being on ADHD medication by more than 50 percent.
• A family on welfare upped the odds of medication use by 135%.
• Boys were three times more likely to be on medication than girls.
• Social dynamics affected both sexes equally.

"Almost half of the cases could be explained by the socioeconomic factors included in our analysis, clearly demonstrating that these are potent predictors of ADHD-medication in Swedish school children," Hjern said.

It’s clear that this study found a link between socioeconomic factors and ADHD medication use/diagnosis. Other US studies have found that minority children and children of low socioeconomic status were more likely to receive ADHD medication.

Factors like low income and diminished quality time are more common in single-parent families. These typically lead to stressors like family conflict and a lack of social support, Hjern said.

While more research must be done, one has to ask, is medication the answer to social stressors like lack of time and money? Sounds too silly to ask, but it seems that our answer, ridiculously, is a resounding, YES!

We are the masters of our lives. We can make significant personal changes, but we must have the tools to do so. That’s why I began Play Attention (www.playattention.com) years ago.

A Nottingham University research team in the United Kingdom found that the brains of children with ADHD appear to respond to immediate rewards in the same way as they do to medication. Their research was published in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

“Our study suggests that both types of intervention [medicine and immediate reward/reinforcement] may have much in common in terms of their effect on the brain,” said Professor Chris Hollis, the lead investigator of  the study.

The research team used an EEG (electroencephalograph) to measure the brain activity of children as they played a computer game that provided extra points for less impulsive behavior.

The researchers devised a computer space game which rewarded the ADHD children when they caught aliens of specific colors  while avoiding aliens of designated colors. The game design actually tested the children’s ability to resist the impulse to grab the wrong colored aliens.

To test whether immediate reward/reinforcement made a difference, one iteration of the game rewarded the children fivefold for catching the right alien and penalized them fivefold for catching the wrong one.  All of this was done while activity in different parts of their brains was monitored with an EEG.

Hollis found that the immediate rewards helped the children perform better at the game. This was verified by the EEG which  revealed that both medication and immediate reward/reinforcement were "normalizing" brain activity in the same regions.

Many parents of ADHD children are aware that giving a reward to an ADHD child a week after their good behavior is insignificant to that child. ADHD children respond better to immediate reward, not delayed reward.

"Although medication and behavior therapy appear to be two very different approaches of treating ADHD, our study suggests that both types of intervention may have much in common in terms of their effect on the brain. Both help normalize similar components of brain function and improve performance,"  said Hollis.

"We know that children with ADHD respond disproportionately less well to delayed rewards – this could mean that in the ‘real world’ of the classroom or home, the neural effects of behavioral approaches using reinforcement and rewards may be less effective."

It’s obvious that providing immediate rewards/reinforcement 24 hours a day and 7 days a week would be impractical and impossible. But what does this research tell us? It tells us that if we are to train an ADHD student, feedback, reward, and reinforcement need to be immediate if we are to get their brain to rewire.

We at Play Attention have known this for many years. This is why we integrated immediate feedback/reinforcement for attention training, cognitive training, memory training, and behavioral shaping by using feedback technology. We patented this method years ago because of its inherent strength. While we knew this was the best way to achieve success, we feel research like this rather reinforces our approach. It’s about time the world caught up!

PART TWO OF THREE

Entertainment vs. learning
Entertainment is usually a passive act that includes an activity which provides a distraction to everyday events or provides amusement. A good example of entertainment is watching a movie or concert. However, one may also actively participate in recreational entertainment  such as playing video games or sports. One does not participate in an entertaining activity to be educated. That is far from the goal of entertainment. In fact, we participate in entertainment to be relieved of having to work, having to learn, or having to be actively engaged for those purposes. We seek entertainment for fun and pleasure.

Entertainment is a vast industry. The modern American video game industry made about $18.85 billion on video-game hardware, software, and accessories in 2007. That’s nearly twice what movie theaters made and triple what the video game industry made in 2000. Most authorities on video games estimate that 70 to 80 percent of boys and approximately 20 percent of girls play video games daily.

Learning is on the other end of the spectrum from entertainment. In order to learn, we need attention, challenge, and deliberate practice. We need to be actively engaged. To apply the mind with the intent of long-term retention, assimilation, and application of new information. This implies both effort and commitment. While we may employ some of these elements, the purpose is far different in a learning environment. The purpose of learning in Star Trek: Bridge Commander is to keep the ship from exploding by using the controls correctly.  Learning is there to benefit your game play.  While this takes some reasoning and trial and error, is this useful in the classroom or at the office? Not likely. It’s not likely transferrable or to generalize either unless your child’s job is commanding Star Fleet.

If I may paraphrase the late martial artist and film legend Bruce Lee, you cannot learn to swim by kicking your legs and stroking with your arms on land. You have to jump in the water. You cannot learn to run a marathon by jogging around the track. 

In other words, if we want to learn something, it has to be taught with a purpose or aim, and we have to practice it deliberately to improve. If we closely examine what video games our spouse, child, or clients are playing, then we might just be alarmed at the violence, the lack of humanity, and gratuitous sex involved.

The most popular video games are those that are visually intense and graphically frenetic. It’s important to mention here that paying attention to visually stimulating and frenetic activity is another hallmark of an ADHD individual. Offer a 3-ring circus and their brain is quite capable of attending to it. Ask them to clean their room, a much less stimulating activity, and it’s very difficult. This predisposition towards highly stimulating activities seems to involve the brain’s reward and gratification systems as well as its processing and other regulatory systems.

Thus, a high stimulation Xbox or Play Station game is quite satisfying; ADHD individuals can hyperfocus on these games for hours on end. What does that teach? Research tells us that people who play these games do learn visual recognition skills, i.e. they can rapidly determine the number of opposing characters on screen far faster than the average human being. So, if the only thing they’re going to be is a fighter pilot, then these games might be suitable.

Other research tells us that if one chronically plays these games (chronically would be classified as one hour or more per day), one is more likely to report lower grades at school, diminished attention at school, and a greater probability of being addicted to these games or the Internet itself. Good Japanese research also noted that entertaining, highly stimulating video games that involve little else than pointing and shooting can lower both the metabolic rate and EEG in the frontal lobes of the brain. The frontal lobes, among other capacities, govern attention, aggression, and impulsivity. This is important to know especially if you have an ADHD person in your household using these games.

It seems that most ADHD children and adults are prewired to pay attention to overly stimulation things. That seems to be a hallmark of the trait. They frequently become hyperfocused on them for hours at a time. Taking these games away is probably not practical. However, limiting play time is quite sensible.

If one is to learn skills, techniques, or methods that will strengthen the brain, then the video game must be quite different than the Xbox or Play Station most popular list.

Upcoming, part 3, Play Attention vs. off the shelf video games.

PART ONE OF THREE

This blog is partially based on material I presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations in Vienna, Austria.

Playing vs. learning
What’s the difference between playing and learning? Sometimes there is no difference. People can learn through play. Educators have known this for years. Grade school teachers often try to teach using games. Games engage, excite, and motivate students. However, there is a significant difference between games that simply entertain and games that facilitate learning.

When learning through games or other modalities, three fundamental catalysts are necessary for the brain to create and grow a neural pathway facilitating long-term retention. These catalysts are attention, challenge, and deliberate practice.

Attention 
A student must pay enough attention to incoming stimuli to even begin the learning process. Too little attention causes the student to constantly redirect attention to other stimuli.  Picture your ADHD child trying to learn multiplication tables. While the teacher is teaching 2 x 2, he’s paying attention to the bird outside the window. Little chance that multiplication tables will be learned soon. So, attention is crucial, in fact, it’s the core to all learning. For an ADHD person, the ability to direct attention and sustain it without distraction is impaired.

Challenge
If the teacher can get a student to pay enough attention to multiplication tables, the student must then be challenged. Challenge arrives when the brain confronts something it doesn’t quite understand. The brain attempts to place the information into a tenuous relationship with information it already possesses. If the brain already knows the information, it simply retrieves the data from its storage bank. So, if the teacher presents 2 x 1, and the student knows immediately the answer is 2, then there’s no challenge and little is learned. However, if the teacher presents 2 x 7561, then the student is challenged and must use all of his pre-existing knowledge to find a solution. Attention and challenge spark creation and growth of new neural pathways for long-term retention. However, long-term retention is not guaranteed until we practice.

Deliberate practice
Educationalists have known that haphazard studying or practice results in haphazard learning. Deliberate practice is a term coined by Dr. Anders Eriksson, a professor at Florida State University (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html). He studied how people become experts in their fields and found that the length of time they practiced and their use of deliberate practice greatly influenced their expertise. 

Let’s use multiplication tables again to describe deliberate practice.  Chances are that you learned your multiplication tables by practicing one group at a time; multiplying by 1, by 2, by 3, etc. In many years of teaching, I never saw a student learn multiplication tables by learning 2 x 3, then 7 x 9, then 6 x7. We learned in a sequence that was deliberately practiced until mastered.

When I was learning to multiply by 6, I had difficulty with 6 x 7, 6  x 8, and 6 x 9. So, my teacher made special flashcards for me with these specific problems written on the cards. I used these cards, blocks, and other devices to practice these difficult sequences. If I didn’t get the right answer, I got immediate feedback that I was incorrect. I used this feedback to make changes to my strategy in attempting to find the correct solution. That’s deliberate practice; sorting out the difficult elements that we have not learned, developing strategies to learn them, getting feedback regarding correctness or incorrectness of these strategies, and practicing them correctly and  long enough to attain long-term retention.

Most people do not  use deliberate practice. We just practice, i.e. we just repeat the same thing over and over without taking the time or making the effort to work on the elements that are most difficult for us. We often only practice things that are easy or that we’re already good at performing. We avoid the difficult elements that don’t provide immediate reward, and that seems to be the line that clearly distinguishes expert from amateur.

Coming soon, part two: Entertainment vs. Learning

Obviously, being pregnant can be stressful in itself, but current research shows that stress can affect fetal development which may lead to long-term problems including ADHD.

Dr. Vivette Glover of Imperial College London, surveyed pregnant women at her hospital. Of these, nearly one quarter felt anxious and depressed due to stressors including work, money, arguing with spouse, and moving to accommodate a larger family. When compared to their non-stressed counterparts in this research, the babies of the stressed mother had lower birth weight, lower IQ, slower cognitive development, and more anxiety. Lower birth weight has been an indicator for coronary heart disease in later life.

In 2007, research in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry indicated that being stressed during pregnancy is as detrimental for the baby’s development as smoking or being obese. Glover’s research reveals why and how this happens: stress produces the hormone cortisol. An abundance of stress can actually diminish the barrier enzyme that inhibits cortisol from reaching the fetus. Costisol impacts fetal brain development.

According to Glover, “People used to think that if something was congenital, apparent at birth, it had to be genetic. In fact it can be an in-vitro reaction of genes and environment.”

Glover also contends that her research shows stress greatly increases the likelihood of a child having ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), cognitive delay, autism , anxiety and depression. 

Glover’s research reinforces previous data from the UK where stress was shown to increase the risk for development of ADHD. In that research, the women who experienced the most stress doubled the chances of developing ADHD.

“The organs are forming during the first trimester of pregnancy, but the brain is developing all the way through,” Glover explains. “The organs are sensitive while they are forming and, once formed, they are harder to change.”

“In evolutionary terms, stress perhaps prepares the child for survival in a stressful environment. If a child is anxious and has attention deficiency, it will be very alert to danger. This may once have been adaptive, beneficial for the child, but it isn’t any more,” Glover says.

Significantly, Glover’s research implies that the changes may be on a genetic level so that it may be passed on generation to generation.

Therefore, it’s important to realize that taking care of ourselves during pregnancy is more important now than ever. Small efforts like seeking health services early, meditating, eating a balanced diet, taking pre-natal vitamins, and laughing are good practices.

Minimizing stress by maintaining a consistent schedule both at work and at home is a good idea.

Researchers, Dr. Zylowska, et al from the University of California-Los Angeles conducted a feasibility study of an 8-week mindfulness training program for adults and adolescents with ADHD. Their report was published in The Journal of Attention Disorders (2008 May;11(6):737-46. Epub 2007 Nov 19).

The researchers sought to inquire whether mindfulness meditation could improve attention, reduce stress, and improve mood. The researchers recruited 34 adults and 8 adolescents. Study participants were given a weekly training session. They were also required to practice daily starting with 5 minutes of meditation per day and gradually increasing to 15 minutes per day.

The majority of participants (after dropouts) reported improvements in self-reported ADHD symptoms. Independent tests on tasks measuring attention and cognitive inhibition also indicated improved symptom outcomes. Improvements in anxiety and depressive symptoms were also observed.

In yet another pilot study conducted by Sarina J. Grosswald, Ed.D., a George Washington University-trained cognitive learning specialist, a group of middle school students with ADHD were required to meditate twice a day in school. After three months, researchers found over 50 percent reduction in stress and anxiety and improvements in ADHD symptoms.

"The effect was much greater than we expected," said Sarina J. Grosswald, Ed.D., a George Washington University-trained cognitive learning specialist and lead researcher on the study. "The children also showed improvements in attention, working memory, organization, and behavior regulation."

Due to the neuroplasticity of the brain, better attention can be attained through meditation. Buddhist monks have been doing it for centuries. This seems to be true of ADHD persons as well. However, it is quite apparent that attention difficulties are just the tip of the ADHD iceberg. Other skills including organization, filtering out distractions, memory, time on-task, motor skills, visual tracking, etc, are typically diminished in ADHD persons. A complete program like Play Attention is required to teach these skills.

As for meditation, it is likely a good supplement to training in the aforementioned skill areas, but given the nature of the cited studies, a controlled clinical study is warranted.

  The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091) recently published work by Dr. Nora D. Volkow, MD, et al regarding evaluation of the biological bases that may reveal a reward/motivational deficit present in the brains of persons with ADHD.

Volkow and her colleagues theorized that ADHD may be connected to reward-motivation deficits. Volkow investigated whether lack of motivation and its relationship to reward could be traced to depression of dopamine in various areas of the brain.

To determine whether dopamine was depressed in ADHD persons, the researchers used positron emission tomography (PET scans) to measure dopamine levels in 53 nonmedicated ADHD adults and 44 healthy non ADHD adults between 2001-2009.

Since the biological mechanisms of ADHD are unknown, studies of this type have become the holy grails of research. While Volkow’s credentials are quite impressive (NIH, NIDA, etc.) this research is not new or conclusive. The theory that dopamine dysfunction/depression may be involved with ADHD symptoms has been researched for many years.

Furthermore, Volkow’s  small sample size consisted only of adults and therefore should not be extrapolated to include the child population. The small sample size alone should prevent it from being generalized to the entire adult ADHD population. One has a problem of antecedence here; is ADHD caused by dopamine depression in the brain? Or is the dopamine depression the result of ADHD that was acquired by other biological means? This research cannot answer that question.

What does the research tell us? It tells us that for some adults, dopamine may play a role in ADHD. For those adults, taking a stimulant medication may increase dopaminergic activity thus increasing reward/motivation responses and thus increasing attention to task. That might be a stretch.

On the downside, persons with depressed dopamine levels would probably greatly enjoy using stimulants. Study participants reported this. This may contribute to the frequent incidences of substance abuse among ADHD persons.

The authors write,"Despite decades of research, the specific neurobiological mechanisms underlying this disorder still remain unclear. Genetic, clinical and imaging studies point to a disruption of the brain dopamine system, which is corroborated by the clinical effectiveness of stimulant drugs (methylphenidate hydrochloride and amphetamine), which increase extracellular dopamine in the brain."

Unfortunately, the study leaves us with more questions than answers. Does it tell us what happens long term? Does it tell us of side effects?  Does it tell us if this actually applies to children? Can we conclusively determine a causal relationship between reward/motivation and ADHD? Does it solve the problem of antecedence? Do we know anything conclusively about all ADHD adults. No. There’s still a long road ahead.

Research over the past decade has been relatively inconclusive regarding the etiology of ADHD and its genetic links. The January 07, 2009 special issue of American Journal of Medical Genetics (AJMG): Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics presents a comprehensive overview of the latest genetic research of ADHD. In search of the ADHD holy grail, researchers have attempted to identify specific genes that underlie the disorder in the hopes that gene discovery will lead to better treatments for the disorder.

The studies cited in the AJMG indicate that one genetic marker may be associated with ADHD symptoms with the possibility that many genes are involved in ADHD. Each of these genes may play small roles in their overall presentation of ADHD symptoms. The currents studies then are inconclusive and suggest the need for larger studies a) to determine if there are genetic mechanisms underlying ADHD, b) to determine what these mechanisms do if they exist, and c) to determine whether these initial findings can be confirmed.

An important issue needs to be raised here: If one can find a genetic marker and the various genes involved in ADHD, is it therefore a disease like diabetes, cancer, or atherosclerosis? Or is it a genetic trait like red hair, crooked teeth, or freckles? Personally, it seems to me to be more of a trait than anything else. Even the noted ADHD expert, Dr. Ed Hallowell and his colleague, Dr. Peter Jensen, have indicated they perceive ADHD as a trait.

The second issue that needs to be raised here is: What is it that the researchers can do with the genetic information they are seeking? The answer to this question is medication. Most of the genetic studies have leaned toward a genomic search for genes that may someday be used to predict which children respond most favorably to the stimulant medications. The current studies indicate that, although there are likely to be genetic factors that are associated with stimulant efficacy in children with ADHD, there are no single genes with a very large impact on treatment response. This may be because ADHD is a conflation of diffused attention, poor organization, hyperactivity, etc. Are there genetic markers for each of these individual characteristics?

This presents us with the problem of antecedence (chicken or the egg). It appears that ADHD is a conflation of a variety of characteristics. This is precisely how it is diagnosed. These characteristics could be acquired in one of two methods: They could be genetic (heritable) or they could be learned. One can learn to be disorganized, hyperactive, or even have diffused attention. Most of us experience this now in our busy, noisy existence on this planet. Does this change our genetic makeup?

We know that when we learn something, certain genes are switched on which activate messenger RNA to build neural networks supporting long-term memory. Therefore, we are substantially changing our genetic makeup. The brain is incredibly malleable or labile. This is both significant and promising. We can and do shape it through our various daily activities. It would hold then, that we can change our diffused attention into focused attention, our disorganization into organization, and our hyperactivity into calm behavior. However, if we obdurately argue that ADHD is a disorder or disability, then hope for this change is diminished if not extinguished. Now is the time to realize that there is hope for persons with attention challenges; change is quite possible and achievable. Genetic research points us in this direction. It’s past time to follow