New analyses regarding digital health interventions suggest that specially designed video games may offer a small benefit in improving attention symptoms for children with certain neurodevelopmental conditions. While the findings indicate a positive outcome in a research setting, the improvements were not large enough to be considered a standalone cure. These results were recently published in the journal Psychiatry Research.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, is a widespread condition that often manifests in children as difficulty sustaining focus or regulating impulses. This inattention is thought to stem from underlying differences in brain function related to neurotransmitter systems.

Standard treatments usually involve stimulant or non-stimulant medications, which can be highly effective for many children in managing core symptoms. However, these pharmaceutical options sometimes carry unwanted side effects, such as sleep difficulties or reduced appetite, prompting families and clinicians to search for additional approaches.

Over the past decade, various researchers have proposed digital interventions as a potential avenue for therapy. The underlying theory posits that certain video games designed to engage specific cognitive networks might stimulate brain activity in areas associated with attention.

Pengwei Ma, affiliated with Southwest University in China, aimed to evaluate the collective quality and consistency of the evidence regarding these digital therapeutics. Ma and the research team recognized that while individual experiments existed, their results were sometimes inconsistent or limited by small participant numbers.

To address this uncertainty with greater statistical power, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach essentially functions as a “study of studies.” Instead of running a new clinical trial with patients, the team comprehensively searched major scientific databases to locate existing, high-quality research papers. By pooling data from multiple smaller projects, researchers can sometimes detect subtle effects that might be missed in an individual trial with fewer participants.

The researchers specifically looked for randomized controlled trials, which are generally considered the gold standard for evaluating medical interventions. The analysis was narrowed to include only studies focusing on children aged twelve and younger who had received a formal clinical diagnosis of ADHD. The search ultimately identified ten reputable trials that met strict inclusion criteria, encompassing data from a total of 820 participants across different countries.

By combining the numerical outcomes from these ten separate trials, the investigators calculated an overall statistical measure known as an “effect size.” This number indicates the magnitude of the difference between groups that used the video game interventions and control groups that did not.

The combined analysis revealed that children who used the targeted video games experienced a measurable improvement in attention deficits compared to their peers. Statistical tests confirmed that this positive result was likely a genuine effect of the intervention rather than a chance occurrence.

It is important for a non-expert audience to contextualize the magnitude of this improvement. While the effect was statistically detectable, the researchers characterized the benefit as not biologically strong enough to be clinically meaningful on its own. To put this in perspective, medical researchers use specific numerical ranges to define how well a treatment works in a practical sense. Standard stimulant interventions for ADHD typically show a moderate to strong effect size in similar analyses.

The pooled effect size for the video game interventions fell into a range that scientists classify as small. This distinction is vital for parents and clinicians to understand when considering treatment options. A measurable change in a controlled research setting does not always translate to a major transformation in a child’s daily life skills or academic performance.

The analysis suggests that while digital interventions have a verifiable positive impact, they are not currently powerful enough to replace existing first-line treatments like medication or behavioral therapy.

The authors noted several aspects of the available data that require cautious interpretation. The review was limited to studies published in English and Chinese, potentially missing relevant research conducted in other languages. Furthermore, some of the included trials did not fully report methodological details, such as precisely how they ensured researchers remained unaware of which children were assigned to the treatment or control groups.

The review also highlighted variables that might influence how well these digital therapies work in future applications. There were indications that interventions lasting eight weeks or longer might be more effective than programs with shorter durations. Additionally, the researchers observed that video games incorporating physical exercise seemed to yield better results than sedentary cognitive games. Ma and colleagues suggested that future inquiries should investigate combining video game therapy with physical activity to potentially enhance therapeutic outcomes.

The ultimate conclusion drawn by the paper is one of cautious optimism. The findings support the idea that video games “may be therapeutic when added to other evidence-based therapies.” They appear best suited as a complementary tool within a broader treatment plan rather than a solitary solution for attention deficits in children.

The study, “Effects of video game intervention on attention deficit in children with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” was authored by Pengwei Ma, Zhuolin Xue, Kun Yuan, Peiyun Zheng, Junfeng Li, and Jindong Chang.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is frequently stereotyped as a condition affecting school-aged children who cannot sit still in class. However, symptoms of this neurodevelopmental disorder often persist well into adulthood and later life.

A new study indicates that symptoms of inattention are linked to lower performance on memory and mental processing tasks in older adults. This association appears to remain consistent regardless of whether an individual is in their late fifties or their early eighties. The findings were published in the Journal of Attention Disorders.

Marrium Mansoor, a researcher at Virginia Tech, led the investigation to bridge a gap in current medical understanding. Most existing literature focuses on the cognitive impacts of the disorder in children or young adults. When researchers do study cognition in older populations, the focus typically shifts almost exclusively to dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

This leaves a blind spot regarding how Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) manifests in seniors. Mansoor and her colleagues sought to determine if the specific cognitive deficits seen in younger patients are also present in the aging population of the United States.

The research team aimed to disentangle specific ADHD symptoms from general aging or other mental health conditions. They were particularly interested in two distinct categories of symptoms. The first category is inattention, characterized by difficulty focusing or sustaining attention. The second is hyperactivity and impulsivity, characterized by restlessness or acting without thinking. The researchers also wanted to verify if depression was actually the root cause of cognitive issues, rather than ADHD itself.

To investigate these questions, the team utilized data from the Health and Retirement Study. This is a large-scale, longitudinal project that surveys a representative slice of the American population over the age of 50. The researchers selected a sample of approximately 1,300 adults for their analysis. The data for this specific study was collected during the 2016 wave of the survey.

The participants were divided into three specific age bands to allow for detailed comparison. The first group consisted of middle-aged adults between 55 and 64 years old. The second group, labeled “young-old,” included those between 65 and 74. The final group, the “middle-old,” ranged from 75 to 84 years of age.

Participants completed a self-report questionnaire to assess their ADHD symptoms. This tool, known as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, asks individuals to rate how often they experience specific problems. For example, it asks about trouble wrapping up the final details of a project or difficulty keeping appointments. The researchers assessed depression using a separate standard scale.

Cognitive performance was measured using a battery of tests designed to evaluate different mental functions. One such test is known as “Serial 7s.” In this assessment, participants are asked to start at the number 100 and subtract the number seven repeatedly. This task requires strong working memory and sustained attention. It forces the brain to hold a number in mind while performing a calculation.

Another test involved “Immediate Recall.” The interviewer read a list of 10 random words to the participant. The participant then had to repeat as many words as they could remember, in any order. This measures episodic memory, which is the ability to recall specific events or information recently learned. A “Delayed Recall” test asked participants to remember those same words after a five-minute interval.

The researchers also used a “Number Series” test. This involves showing the participant a sequence of numbers with one missing. The participant must identify the pattern and fill in the blank. This tests fluid intelligence, or the ability to reason and solve new problems independent of previously acquired knowledge.

The study revealed a clear statistical link between inattention and specific cognitive struggles. Participants who reported higher levels of inattention symptoms performed worse on the Serial 7s task. They also scored lower on the Immediate Recall test. This suggests that the inability to focus attention directly hampers the brain’s ability to process numbers and encode new memories.

The researchers used statistical modeling to determine if these associations changed as people got older. They compared the strength of the relationship between symptoms and cognitive scores across the three age groups. They found that the “constrained model” provided the best fit for the data. In statistical terms, this means the relationship between inattention and cognitive performance did not vary by age. The negative impact of inattention on memory and processing was just as strong for an 84-year-old as it was for a 55-year-old.

The findings regarding hyperactivity and impulsivity were less consistent. In some initial statistical models, high hyperactivity scores seemed linked to worse performance on delayed memory tasks for the oldest group. However, in the final, most accurate model, this connection was not statistically significant. This reinforces the idea that inattention is the primary driver of cognitive difficulties in this context.

A critical aspect of this study was its treatment of depression. Previous research conducted in Australia and the Netherlands suggested that depression might be the real reason older adults with ADHD symptoms struggle cognitively. Depression often causes lack of focus and memory issues. However, Mansoor and her team found that the link between inattention and poor cognition remained even when they accounted for depressive symptoms.

The authors suggest these results have practical applications for doctors and geriatric specialists. Older adults reporting memory problems are often evaluated for dementia. This study implies that some of these patients might be dealing with undiagnosed or unmanaged ADHD. Interventions that focus on memory strategies, such as the “method of loci” or other mnemonic devices, could be beneficial.

There are limitations to this research that require consideration. The study relied on self-reported symptoms rather than clinical diagnoses made by a psychiatrist. Older adults might over-report or under-report their symptoms based on their perception of what is normal aging. Additionally, the study excluded people with a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.

Another potential limitation is a concept called survival bias. The authors note that individuals with severe ADHD often have lower life expectancies due to accidents or comorbid health issues. As a result, the “middle-old” group in this study might represent a healthier subset of the population. Those with the most severe impairments may have passed away before reaching that age bracket.

The study also used cross-sectional data, meaning it looked at one specific point in time. It did not track the same individuals over decades to see how their specific cognitive trajectory changed. Future research would benefit from following individuals from middle age into late adulthood. This would help clarify if ADHD symptoms accelerate cognitive decline or simply lower the baseline of performance.

The researchers emphasize that cultural context matters. The difference between their findings and European or Australian studies suggests that the environment plays a role. Different healthcare systems and diagnostic norms may influence how these symptoms present in older populations.

Mansoor and her colleagues conclude that clinical awareness is vital. ADHD is not a condition that simply disappears after retirement. As the population ages, distinguishing between neurodevelopmental symptoms and neurodegenerative disease will become a key challenge for healthcare providers.

The study, “Self-Reported ADHD Symptoms and Cognitive Performance in a National Sample of US Older Adults,” was authored by Marrium Mansoor, Rosanna Breaux, Tae-Ho Lee, and Benjamin Katz.