EEG neurofeedback?

My general impression is that the EEG by itself is often used by neurologists to help rule out or rule in some types of epilepsy.

The ADHD meds can change the tracings on an EEG.

It’s my general impression that EEG neurofeedback fails for classic ADHD and EEG neurofeedback is an easy way for many people to waste a lot of time and money on an ineffective approach toward the real neurological challenge known as ADHD.

EEG neurofeedback is viewed as a secondary or tertiary alternative approach to ADHD which fails to compare well with the ADHD meds for those with classic ADHD. That’s my understanding.

ADHD is viewed by some companies as a target audience to sell products to; whether the products really work or work well - some of the companies don’t care - as long as some people buy their products based in too many cases on false promises.

That’s my opinion. Good luck.

I know someone that specializes in neurofeedback and has found it to be quite effective. He’s on vacation now but when he returns I’ll ask him about the different programs. The research on neurofeedback is not yet comprehensive, but what has been done is very promising. For parents who are uncomfortable with meds and/or want to remediate the underlying deficit- neurofeedback may be the way to go.

I recall reading about a study showing that the positive effects were temporary and stopped when the treatment stopped, but I also saw something more recent (perhaps one of David Rabiner’s write-ups on attention.com) that showed more promising results. Just one of many treatments on which the jury is still out and researchers are not keeping pace.

Andrea

Andrea

..

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_10919.html

This study showed that children who received medication plus biofeedback for one year showed improvements that continued even after medication was stopped. Unanswered questions include how long the improvements last after biofeedback treatments end and whether kids who are not taking stimulant medication will receive similar benefits.

Andrea

As a psychologist, I recently reviewed all the research literature on neurobiofeedback. The claims sound wonderful but the proof isn’t there yet. There are very few studies that even have a control group and most have very small sample size.

Here is my experience but not with the programs you mention. My 10-year son completed Interactive Metronome last spring at my university (I got my department to buy it). It is a biofeedback program. After 33 sessions (and $2800), he got his numbers down from 250 millisecs to 19 millisecs. We were both thrilled. Since then, I have carefully observed him at soccer, skiing, etc. and can say with some sadness that I see very little change in him in terms of coordination or sports-related attention. He was always so-so and remains so-so. (And he does take stimulants for his ADHD). Other parents on the Board have have seen astounding results with IM, but not me. One positive note. I do think my son keeps the beat to music better.

I have had about 7 clients in the last few years whose children have participated in major neurobiofeedback training programs for as long as 8 months to 2 years with the cost around $5,000-$10,000. Several of these clients had their children with the leaders in the neurobiofeedback field. Only one of my clients felt it really helped her child with his attention. Several others felt their children did learn to relax, and one felt it helped with anger management. I remain open to the approach but worry it helps too few at present.

I would suggest that anyone interested in pursuing this be careful of second hand information in general. There are a number of studies in pubmed. I haven’t found one that says it doesn’t work. Most of the critisicm is related to there not being conclusive evidence of the effectiveness. For example one positive double blind study was found to have not enough participants to be considered conclusive although the results were quite positive.

One thing I will say is that I would use a program that helps the child find the calm attentive state and not just raise them out of the inattentive state. I thought Beverly’s comments were quite helpful when she stated that her son could beat the system through his hyperattentiveness. I get the impression that some systems are better than others for handling this issue. Also, some of the research addresses using cognitive enhancement with neurofeedback. This makes alot of sense to me. Not only do you find the attentive state but then use that attentive state to help you learn. I think I may use neurofeedback and then follow-up with PACE. It is one thing to learn a new skill but as with any new skill if you don’t use it you will lose it. If you stimulate an area of the brain you have to continue to use those newly formed neural connections or they could go away.

I don’t consider IM to be a type of neurofeedback. I have not heard anyone call IM neurofeedback. Neurofeedback involves the use of an eeg to give the patient feedback about what is working to help them maintain the attentive state. Biofeedback is accepted treatment for other disorders such as incontinence, depression and sleep disorders. I think that it would be harder to see a positive result with any of these treatments if your child was on meds as meds would already be stimulating the attention. I don’t think any of the studies on IM involved children who were already medicated.

Go to www.pubmed.org and plug in biofeedback and ADHD. The research is quite compelling despite the fact that more study is needed.

PS. PUBMED is the standard internet medical database used by physicians and other medical personnell. I have had some success finding the articles on pubmed and then searching for them under google. You can get some decent info from the abstracts as well.

Actually, a recent study of IM did involve children receiving stimulant medication. The study was of boys with ADHD who were taking stimulants. Some of the boys received IM treatments, some were assigned to play nonviolent video games and some received no intervention. The boys who received IM showed improvement on more of the factors observed than any of the children, but children who played video games also showed improvements. The children who received no treatment showed changes in performance that were consistent with what might happen by chance. The text of David Rabiner’s (of attention.com) review of the study is posted below:

EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE METRONOME RHTYMICITY
TRAINING ON CHILDREN WITH ADHD

Could learning to keep the beat with a metronome be a helpful adjunctive treatment
for children with ADHD? This question addressed in a study published last year in
the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (Shaffer, R.J. et al., (2001). Effect
of interactive metronome rhythmicity training on children with ADHD. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 155-162).

As you are probably aware, a metronome is a simple device that emits a sound at
regular and adjustable intervals. It is used to help developing musicians learn to “keep
the beat”. The Interactive Metronome (IM)is a variant of this device that uses a
computer to produces a rhythmic beat that individuals listen to through headphones.
As the participant listens, he/she must anticipate the beat and perform various hand
and foot exercises for a high number of repetitions. Regular auditory feedback is
provided through headphones indicating whether one’s response was on time, early,
or late. The difference between the participants’ response and the actual beat is
measured in milliseconds and indicates the size of the discrepancy between the beat
of the metronome and the person’s response. Over repeated practice sessions, many
individuals who initially have trouble coordinating their behavior with the beat of the
metronome gradually become more successful at “keeping the beat”. This
improvement in IM performance is thought to reflect meaningful gains in motor
planning and sequencing ability. For additional information about the Interactive
Metronome, visit http://www.interactivemetronome.com.

What does this have to do with helping children with ADHD? The rational for using
the interactive metronome as an adjunctive treatment for ADHD is evidence that
motor planning and sequencing, rhythmicity, and timing are all relevant to attention
problems. Difficulty regulating the sequence and timing of motor patterns are related
to problems with behavioral inhibition (i.e. being able to stop or inhibit oneself from
executing a behavioral response) and executive functioning (i.e. higher level cognitive
abilities such as goal setting and planning), that some experts believe are critical to the
understanding of ADHD. In addition, there is evidence of considerable overlap
between attention deficits and motor clumsiness and between the severity of
inattentive symptoms and motor clumsiness in boys with ADHD. Finally, substantial
overlap in brain areas thought to be involved in ADHD and those involved in the
regulation of timing and motor planning have also been reported. Collectively, these
findings suggest that technologies aimed at strengthening motor planning, sequencing,
timing, and rythmicity may have an important role in improving the capacity to learn
and attend.

In the study reference above, 56 6 to 12 year old boys with a confirmed diagnosis of
ADHD were recruited to participate in an investigation of the Interactive
Metronome. Boys were matched on ADHD severity, age, and medication dosage,
and then randomly assigned to one of three different experimental conditions: IM
Training, Video game training, and a no training control group.

IM training consisted of 15 one-hour training sessions administered over a 3-week
period. The goal was to help participants selectively attend - without interruption by
internal thoughts or external distraction - for extended periods of time. This was
done as explained above - i.e. by having participants execute various patterns of
hand and foot motions in keeping with the beat of the Interactive Metronome for
increasingly longer periods. The IM training device provided boys with immediate
feedback about how accurately they were “keeping the beat”, and all boys showed
improvement over the 15 training sessions.

Boys in the video game training group received instruction in 5 commonly available
PC-based non-violent video using an identical training schedule - i.e. 15 one-hour
sessions over a 3-week period. The games involved hand-eye coordination skills,
advanced mental planning, and multiple task sequencing. In each game, the difficulty
increased as boys became more skillful. Video game training was included so the
researchers could determine whether benefits of IM training exceeded those that may
result from concentrated video game play, an activity that also provides practice in
focus and concentration skills).

Boys in the IM and video game training groups received the same level of adult
supervision, encouragement, and support. The adults supervising both types of
training were college students without advanced degrees, who had no formal therapy
or teaching experience. Administrators were trained in IM and video game training
protocols, and supervised the training for boys in both groups. This assured that
there were no systematic differences between adults working with boys in each
group.

Boys in the control group received neither IM training nor video game training during
the 3-week period.

Before any training began, extensive information was collected on the functioning of
all boys. This included assessments of: 1) attention and concentration using a
computerized test of sustained attention; 2) intellectual ability using a standardized IQ
test; 3) clinical functioning using parent and teacher standardized behavior rating
scales; 4) academic and cognitive skills using standardized academic achievement
and language processing tests. These measures were administered a second time
after training ended - approximately 4-5 weeks after the pretest. When available, a
different version of the test was administered at pre- and post-test, and boys were
pre-and post-tested at the same time of day to control for medication schedules.
Examiners who administered the tests did not know which boys had received IM
training, which had received video game training, and which were in the control
group.

RESULTS

From these measures noted above, 58 separate scale scores were computed for
each boy based on pre and post-test results. Preliminary analysis of pre-test data
indicated that boys in each group were essentially equal prior to training.

To examine the impact of IM and video game training, post-test scores were
subtracted from pre-test scores on all measures. A positive result was obtained
when post-test scores exceeded pre-test scores, thus indicating improved
performance.

Boys in the control group had 28 scores improve and 30 scores decline. This is
consistent with what would be expected by chance, and indicates that neither prior
experience with the test, nor simply the passage of 4-5 weeks time, was sufficient to
produce consistent improvement in the different measures.

Boys in the video game training group showed improvement in 40 of the 58 variables
assessed. This pattern of improved scores is unlikely to have occurred by chance,
and demonstrates that video game training under adult supervision was associated
with better outcomes on many variables.

Boys who received IM training showed even greater gains - i.e. they improved on 53
of the 58 different scales. The number of scales on which higher post test scores
were found significantly exceeded results for the video game training, suggesting that
IM training produced significant additional benefits above and beyond those resulting
from video game training.

The authors next compared outcomes for the 3 groups of boys to determine where
IM training had yielded significantly better results. Compared to boys in the other 2
groups, boys who received IM training showed greater declines in parent rated
aggression, and greater improvements on reading achievement, motor control, and
computerized tests of attention. Because the pre and post-treatment means on these
variables was not provided in the article, the actual magnitude of these differences is
not known.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Results from this study provide initial evidence that IM training directed towards
improving rhythmcity, motor planning, and sequencing may be a beneficial adjunctive
treatment for boys with ADHD. As predicted, boys with ADHD who received IM
training showed improvement in a wide range of areas, and their gains exceeded
those associated with supervised training in a task that also requires sustained
concentration and focus in order to improve (i.e. boys who received video game
training). These results are consistent with the theory behind IM training - namely
that motor planning and sequencing ability influence a broad array of adaptive
functions, including attention.

While this was a carefully conducted study in which necessary experimental controls
were incorporated and promising results were obtained, it is important to recognize
the limitations of this research. First, all boys were already receiving medication
treatment for ADHD, so the effectiveness of IM training for ADHD in the absence of
medication treatment is not known. One cannot assume that IM training alone would
result in effective symptom management and/or functional improvement for children
with ADHD who were not taking medication. This would be an important question
to pursue in future research. It is worth noting, however, that because children were
presumably already benefiting from medication treatment, the fact that IM training
resulted in additional gains to those provided by medication is certainly encouraging.

Second, outcomes in this study were assessed immediately following treatment and
no additional follow up was conducted. Whether the benefits found for IM training
would persist over a sustained period is thus unknown. Because this study was
limited to boys with ADHD, the potential benefits of this treatment for girls with
ADHD is also unclear. Finally, because actual pre- and post-treatment scores were
not included with the results, the actual magnitude of the gains found for IM training
could not be examined.

In conclusion, results of this study provide promising indications that IM training may
play a useful role in the treatment of ADHD. Additional research in which the
limitations noted above are addressed will provide important information about the
utility of IM training as an adjunctive or perhaps even a primary treatment for
ADHD, and allow better informed decisions about the use of this treatment to be
made. Research conducted with the IM in related areas can be found at
www.interactivemetronome.com/research

Reprint requests to:

James Cassily
Director, Neural Technology Research Center
3090 Dawes Se
Grand Rapids, MI 49508

I hope you enjoyed the above review. The next issue of Attention Research Update
will be sent to you in approximately 2-3 weeks. Take care.

Sincerely,

David Rabiner, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Duke University

opics Author Date

I agree that neurofeedback and biofeedback are different but both use sound, visual feedback etc., to get the client to change some physiological measure including brain waves. My son did have some neurofeedback training, as part of the university setting up their latest high tech. neurofeedback system. As I remember, he did theta training which is researched a lot by the neurofeedback people. Forty+ sessions were recommended based on consultation with the researcher. It just was too much money for me at the time. I decided to have my son do yoga for relaxation and continue his specialized tutoring. Both have proven useful. I think a lot of my son’s problem is not being interested in certain things, like reading. When he gets interested, he performs pretty well.

I found Martha Denckla’s grand rounds on ADHD at NIH to be very instructive. If you haven’t already heard it, I recommend it. She is a world renowned pediatric neurologist and an expert on ADHD. A videocast of her talk can be downloaded and viewed with RealOne player. If anyone wants the internet address, let me know.

could you please post the link to these videocasts?

Three of my children used the PlayAttention neurofeedback for three months. They had one weekly session that lasted about an hour. I don’t think it did them any good at all. I think the system doesn’t really work the way it claims. For instance, one thing they are supposed to do is focus on a hopping frog. If they produce the right brainwaves, the frog will hop. If they don’t it just sits there. Then when it moves, they must refocus to make it hop again. This is supposed to train them in refocussing their attention, a valuable skill, and one lacking in ADHD kids. It is supposed to be a difficult task for many kids. Well, the one day, I came over and my 8 year old daughter had the frog hopping all over the place! Great, right? But she wasn’t even looking at the screen! She was not paying attention or trying to focus at all!

I had to wonder if the equipment really was picking up her brainwaves. They wear a helmet that has only three contacts: one on the top of the head and one behing each ear. Is that really enough contact to pick up the very faint electrical energy the brain sends out? Plus I don’t think the helmet fitted all that great.

I had several eeg’s done for a sleep study, and they had me wired all over my head, plus they cemented those wires in place. I don’t really have the time or money to spend on what amounts to me an unproven technology. None of my children showed any improvement at all with this method.

The site address is as follows:

http://videocast.nih.gov

Once you are on the site, click on “Past Events.” Then type in the search box ‘Martha Denckla’ and then click Search. Three videocasts are listed and hers is the third, “What ADHD Really Means…..” Then download. I noticed that on the main window they have a listing about RealPlayerOne, which is the free player that you need to watch the videocast.

The first half of the grand rounds is an interview by Martha Denckla of a teenage boy with ADHD. The second half is her lecture with several questions from the audience at the end.

I would urge everyone to check out this link. Martha Denckla is a true expert and also very down to earth. She diagnosed my son and I felt that she truly cared about what was going on with him and understood why he was having the problems he had. She gave my husband and I tons of really helpful information and explanations.

Andrea

That’s disappointing to hear. We do meds and behavioral and/or academic intervention as needed - we’ve had great results so far. DD is doing so well, we are all very happy about it. But in the back of my mind, from time to time I still wish a non-med alternative would have worked.

Out of all the non-med alternatives, I’ve heard colloquially that neurofeedback might be credible. I’ve also heard it is expensive.

We are still financially reeling from 2 1/2 years of private tutoring for dd’s dyslexia which did successfully remediate her reading/writing problems - well worth it but ridiculously expensive.

I would like to try the neurofeedback and have been thinking about it for months. But sad to say, I can’t afford another large expense on a gamble as to whether or not it will work.

It’s kinda a sorry commentary when you have to balance financial realities versus potential help for your child. Plus, I always wonder how many people prey on parents of ADHD’ers for their own financial gain - cynic that I am.

Did anybody see the JAMA article/study?

It compared brain images of kids w/o ADHD to kids with ADHD both medicated and not medicated. The brain patterns of ADHD kids treated with medication were more similar to non-ADHD’ers than non-medicated ADHD’ers. The difference was significant. Makes sense - the medication is supposed to help the neurotransmitters work more efficiently (or something like that?). One of the conclusions (don’t jump all over me here - I’m a layman parent not a scientist) suggested that the use of medication is more beneficial and loing term or permanent than previously thought. Good news for nervous parents like me in light of the continuing media controversies about ADHD treatment.

Everything I’ve ever read (from what I consider to be credible) has said the single most effective ADHD treatment plan is medication but by far more preferrable, the most effective ADHD treatment plans are multi-modal including medication plus whatever interventions the child needed (e.g., academic and/or behavioral and/or social skills help).

So, following the same logic, this would make sense that the neurofeedback plus meds was proving to be more effective than neurofeedback alone, right? Or, is the improvement misattributed to the biofeedback when it may come more from the meds like the JAMA study shows. I honestly don’t know. Just throwing it out there - definitely something to think about and read up more.

Also, I’d appreciate if someone could clarify for me - are neurofeedback and biofeedback interchangable? What are the differences between the two terms?

Valid point. While you can pick up electrical emissions with just two sensors, I do know that EEG and EMG equipment often pick up on radio transmissions, movement artifact and other forms of static. (The person performing the study is expected to be familiar with all the usual types of interference, so that they can correct these issues.) Finding a place where the equipment can be shielded is a major part of picking your procedure room. This could be part of the problem with the the Play Attention device, especially since the contacts are relatively loose. I’ll pass along your concern to the people at Play Attention, and ask them if there is someway of looking at the EEG trace so I can check out the waveform. Otherwise some of the older multipurpose systems might actually be a better bet.

Having read Liz B’s use of Play Attention and her poor experience, I would like to try to offer some easy solutions to remedy her situation in hopes that her future Play Attention experience will be as beneficial as that of thousands of adults and children have had world wide.

Here’s what most likely happened as we have experienced this call once or twice before when a non-purchaser/owner is using rental or loaned equipment:

* A baseline was not taken or was not taken correctly
* The student logged in (it appears unsupervised) in Demo Mode (for demonstration purposes) which allows the screen characters to move without any input from the user
* The Page Up or Page Down (recalibration) was not implemented

This problem occurs sometimes for users who don’t fully read the User’s Manual or call the toll free ed support hotline to talk to a live personal account manager. These support features always lead to proper use promote maximum enjoyment and benefits of Play Attention. Here’s what we provide to insure proper use:

1) An interactive manual with audio and full video clips embedded.
2) Unlimited toll free ed and tech support for the life of the product
3) A dedicated support site
4) Optional on-site training
5) A free motivational Rewards Program
6) A patented Behavioral Modification program
7) A simple sensor loaded helmet that is easily adjustable and practical

Regarding helmet fit, our helmet is identical to the standard bicycle helmet distributed worldwide; however, it is not ‘one size fits all.’ A Play Attention account manager can easily help you with adjustment or recommend an appropriate size helmet for your child. Our contacts are exactly the type our NASA consultants recommend for attention training, however, sleep studies are entirely different and require a full brain mapping placement.

Play Attention is not a quick fix. For maximum learning, transfer, and generalization our recommendation is to use Play Attention at least two or three times a week, otherwise learning, transfer, and generalization are less likely to occur. If behaviors are to be modified, supervision is required. The User Data Menu allows you to graph student progress, but our research demonstrates that this typically requires 12 to 15 hours of actual software play before trends begin to show improvement.

Nothing is more valuable to us at Play Attention than Feedback, especially feedback from our customers. We hope this post has been constructive and helpful in solving your problems. We welcome further contact from Liz B or any customer who requires great support! Liz can call 800-788-6786 (Monday through Friday 9 - 5 Eastern).

Greg Bishop
Play Attention Family Accounts Manager
Unique Logic + Technology, Inc.
[email protected]

I took my daughter to a rehabilitation center that offered EEG Neurofeedback to their patients. My daughter has been diagnosed with ADHD, depression, anxiety, OCD, and has bedwetting problems. We went to the rehab center (1-1/2 hr round trip) twice a week for 20 weeks. After the first 10 weeks, she was reevaluated and they told me that she was not making the progress that they hoped she would, but felt that she would eventually start making significant progress. They convinced me to stick with the program for another ten weeks.
After the 20 weeks were over, the only difference that I could see was that she stopped wetting the bed. Their testing showed no significant improvement. They told me they could not do any more for us. I was out $1,000 and several hours, but I had to try it. I would do just about anything to help my daughter. She has since resumed wetting the bed.

“Plus, I always wonder how many people prey on parents of ADHD’ers for their own financial gain - cynic that I am.”

That is a concern I have as well. Every once in a while we see a flurry of anti-meds, alternative treatment posts from new members of the board. The posters often include a link to a website that is selling alternative treatments or books attacking meds. Often the timing of these posts coincides with media coverage of the controversy over ADHD treatment then the posters simply disappear, never to be heard from again. Most recently it coincided with a big Frontline piece on ADHD. It is one thing to have questions about using meds to treat ADHD or, as a parent, deciding to pursue other promising (if not proven) approaches such as IM, biofeedback, etc. There are legitimate questions about the long-term safety of stimulant medications and one should never take lightly the prospect of giving children controlled substances. It is another thing altogether to make up horror stories about ADHD medications in order to scare parents into buying your product. I think that happens quite a lot and frankly, it makes me sick. It is just too easy to take advantage of parents who are desperate to help their children.

Andrea

Very astute observations and well said. ITA.

That’s what this board should continue to be about - exchange of considered thought or information in a supportive manner.

(I missed the Frontline thing so didn’t put that connection together this time.)

Mr. Bishop,

Thank you for your reply. We were not using PlayAttention at home, but at a learning center with trained people. My daughter did have a baseline, and they do their best to fit the helmet to her head.

We cannot afford any more sessions, nor can we afford to do PlayAttention two or three times a week. This center is an hour’s drive away. It comes down once again to lack of funds, and do I as a parent spend money on unproven techniques? Our family just isn’t able to.

Liz:

Again, we’re sorry for the poor experience you received at the center incorporating our technology. Your email suggests that your child was left unsupervised. We recommend for maximum benefit that a coach supervise the student and adjust calibration manually as needed. It truly sounds as if the calibration (baseline) was poorly taken and that it was not adjusted to accommodate your child. Our new version 4.0 has a new baseline that simplifies the process and insures accuracy even if the user is not totally adept. It is a shame that you would have to drive an hour, but training only once a week would produce the slowest results. It seems that you made the right decision. However, should you enroll your child in another Play Attention program, feel free to call our 800 number listed on our site, www.playattention.com, if you have questions or concerns. Your success is our success, and one of our staff of teachers will help you.

Since Play Attention was founded by educators and concerned parents, we have always been concerned that the technology would be too expensive for the public at large. We have done our best to insure that Play Attention is perhaps the least expensive learning system of its kind on the market. We also expect the cost of the technology to decrease in upcoming years as it is refined.

The technology is hardly unproven as both NASA and the US Air Force have found it quite effective in teaching attention in flight control for the past 15 years or so. Our successes with the many schools and institutions that use Play Attention worldwide prove that attention training is successful if used correctly.

To demystify feedback training and inform the public at large, the CEO of Play Attention has written a letter to the public regarding the use of assistive technology, neuroplasticity, neural networks, and their relationship to feedback training. It’s worth reading at www.playattention.com/CEOletter.htm

Greg Bishop
Play Attention Family Accounts Manager
Unique Logic + Technology, Inc.
[email protected]

–I agree that the US Air Force has had good results with neurobiofeedback for improving attention. But they didn’t use the Play Attention station. I do think that the lack of studies using YOUR specific platform is a problem, because it is unclear whether your platform works as well as that used by the Air Force. I would really like to see a study using the Play Attention station with Play Attention software, vs. Brainmaster station with Play Attention software vs. a standard EEG machine with Play Attention software vs. simply using something like Earobics with a one-on-one coach. My sister is a neurologist. When she does EEGs, she has 18 leads, not three, and I understand that they are very firmly attached to the scalp. Is it possible to get the Play Attention software separately to use with a standard EEG machine? . While I am willing to kiss a few frogs in search of the enchanted prince, I am not so much interested in ease of use, as I am in measuring what it is I think it is that I am measuring.

My ADHD 7 yr son loves to play frogger and learning games on the computer. He could focus on this for hours, forgetting to eat or go to the bathroom etc. How is staring transfixed at a computer (assuming he’s interested in making frogs hop or whatever) any different from his usual hyperfocus on things he likes? Is this going to help him focus on things he didn’t choose?

A good system that can measure the brain waves correctly should encourage that the child stay in the calm attentive state.
I get the impression that some systems only filter out the lower mghz innattentive state and don’t neccessarily encourage the middle zone.

I would think that hyperfocus is a different brain wave (higher mghz) than calm attentive.
I get the impression that all systems are not created equally. I would go to someone who has been doing this along time and uses many leads on the eeg. I would ask about this particular issue.

It is a very reasonable concern.

Read the studies on pubmed. Plug in biofeedback and adhd. www.pubmed.org

NASA also used biofeedback.