Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 223 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khoshsorour S. The Effect of Neurofeedback on Continuous Attention Performance and Math Anxiety in Students with Dyscalculia. MEJDS 2020; 10 :223-223
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1574-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1574-en.html
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Abstract: (2430 Views)
Background & Objectives: One of the most essential factors in students’ educational failure is learning disabilities. The Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) of dyscalculia refers to an inability in the skills related to calculation despite the individual being endowed with normal intelligence and adequate training. Treatment interventions in children with SLDs during primary school can help reduce some of their problems. A relatively novel method that, accompanied by other therapies, provides multiple clinical confirmations is neurofeedback. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of neurofeedback on continuous attention performance and math anxiety in students with dyscalculia.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The statistical population consisted of all male students with dyscalculia referring to several special centers of SLDs in Tehran City, Iran, in the 2017–2018 academic year; of them, 30 students in the fourth and fifth grades of the elementary school who were eager to participate in the study were selected through convenience sampling method. Subsequently, the study subjects were randomly assigned into the experimental and control groups (n=15/group). The inclusion criteria of the research were studying in the fourth or fifth grade; male gender; possessing normal intelligence, and the diagnosis of an SLD, like dyscalculia by a psychiatrist and according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Editions (DSM–5). The exclusion criterion of the study was the presence of sensorymotor disorders. The experimental group received twenty 60–minute neurofeedback treatment twice a week; however, the control group received no training. The present study applied two treatment protocols; the first of which was alpha/theta protocol at Pz point aiming at increasing alpha and decreasing theta. The second protocol was to reinforce beta (15 to 18 Hz) and Sensorimotor Rhythm (SMR) (12–15 Hz), as well as to inhibit theta (4–7 Hz) and high beta (22–28 Hz) in C3 and C4 regions. Furthermore, both study groups were evaluated in pretest and posttest phases by the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) and the Lang Math Anxiety Scale. Data analysis was conducted in SPSS using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA).
Results: There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the continuous performance test data, including the number of correct answers (p<0.001), omission error (p<0.001), response error (p<0.001), and reaction time (p<0.001), as well as mathematical anxiety (p<0.001); therefore, neurofeedback could effectively improve continuous attention and reduce math anxiety in the explored students with dyscalculia. In the continuous performance test, the neurofeedback group, compared with the controls, demonstrated less omission error (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 2.26±1.09 & control group: 4.26±1.03), less response error (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 3.20±0.67 & controls: 5.33±1.58), and less reaction time (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 453.26±19.51 & controls: 690.26±25.86). However, they obtained more correct answers (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 139.93±2.98 & controls: 127.06±3.15). Besides, math anxiety decreased in the neurofeedback group, compared with the control group (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 5.06±1.09 & controls: 7.53±1.84).
Conclusion: Based on the present research findings, neurofeedback can be used as a suitable treatment with very limited adverse effects for individuals with dyscalculia. Considering the significance of mathematics in the educational systems, the application of neurofeedback is suggested as a manner to reduce the failure of executive functions in schools.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The statistical population consisted of all male students with dyscalculia referring to several special centers of SLDs in Tehran City, Iran, in the 2017–2018 academic year; of them, 30 students in the fourth and fifth grades of the elementary school who were eager to participate in the study were selected through convenience sampling method. Subsequently, the study subjects were randomly assigned into the experimental and control groups (n=15/group). The inclusion criteria of the research were studying in the fourth or fifth grade; male gender; possessing normal intelligence, and the diagnosis of an SLD, like dyscalculia by a psychiatrist and according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Editions (DSM–5). The exclusion criterion of the study was the presence of sensorymotor disorders. The experimental group received twenty 60–minute neurofeedback treatment twice a week; however, the control group received no training. The present study applied two treatment protocols; the first of which was alpha/theta protocol at Pz point aiming at increasing alpha and decreasing theta. The second protocol was to reinforce beta (15 to 18 Hz) and Sensorimotor Rhythm (SMR) (12–15 Hz), as well as to inhibit theta (4–7 Hz) and high beta (22–28 Hz) in C3 and C4 regions. Furthermore, both study groups were evaluated in pretest and posttest phases by the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) and the Lang Math Anxiety Scale. Data analysis was conducted in SPSS using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA).
Results: There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the continuous performance test data, including the number of correct answers (p<0.001), omission error (p<0.001), response error (p<0.001), and reaction time (p<0.001), as well as mathematical anxiety (p<0.001); therefore, neurofeedback could effectively improve continuous attention and reduce math anxiety in the explored students with dyscalculia. In the continuous performance test, the neurofeedback group, compared with the controls, demonstrated less omission error (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 2.26±1.09 & control group: 4.26±1.03), less response error (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 3.20±0.67 & controls: 5.33±1.58), and less reaction time (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 453.26±19.51 & controls: 690.26±25.86). However, they obtained more correct answers (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 139.93±2.98 & controls: 127.06±3.15). Besides, math anxiety decreased in the neurofeedback group, compared with the control group (mean±SD scores of the experimental group: 5.06±1.09 & controls: 7.53±1.84).
Conclusion: Based on the present research findings, neurofeedback can be used as a suitable treatment with very limited adverse effects for individuals with dyscalculia. Considering the significance of mathematics in the educational systems, the application of neurofeedback is suggested as a manner to reduce the failure of executive functions in schools.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Sadock BJ, Kaplan HI, Sadock VA. Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry. Philadelphia: Wolter Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. 5th ed. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
3. Behrad B. Prevalence of learning disabilities in Iranian primary students: A meta- analysis. Journal of Exceptional Children. 2006;5(4):417–36. [Persian] [Article]
4. Geary DC. Mathematical disabilities: reflections on cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Learn Individ Differ. 2010;20(2):130. [DOI]
5. Khalife N, Kantomaa M, Glover V, Tammelin T, Laitinen J, Ebeling H, et al. Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms are risk factors for obesity and physical inactivity in adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53(4):425–36. [DOI]
6. Wang S, Yang Y, Xing W, Chen J, Liu C, Luo X. Altered neural circuits related to sustained attention and executive control in children with ADHD: an event-related fMRI study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(11):2181–90. [DOI]
7. Ashcraft MH, Moore AM. Cognitive processes of numerical estimation in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2012;111(2):246–67. [DOI]
8. Jain S, Dowson M. Mathematics anxiety as a function of multidimensional self-regulation and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2009;34(3):240–9. [DOI]
9. Krinzinger H, Kaufmann L, Willmes K. Math anxiety and math ability in early primary school years. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2009;27(3):206–25. [DOI]
10. Kakavand A, Ahadi H. Ekhtelalat Yadgiri (az Nazarye ta Amal) [Learning Disorders (From Theory to Practice)]. Tehran: Arasbaran Publication; 2013. [Persian[
11. Östberg M, Hagekull B, Hagelin E. Stability and prediction of parenting stress. Inf Child Develop. 2007;16(2):207–23. [DOI]
12. Arns M, Conners CK, Kraemer HC. A decade of EEG Theta/Beta Ratio Research in ADHD: a meta-analysis. J Atten Disord. 2013;17(5):374–83. [DOI]
13. Hammond DC. What Is Neurofeedback? Journal of Neurotherapy. 2007;10(4):25–36. [DOI]
14. Sadeghi N, Nazari MA. Effect of neurofeedback on visual-spatial attention in male children with reading disabilities: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience and Medicine. 2015;6(2):71–9. [DOI]
15. Becerra J, Fernández T, Harmony T, Caballero MI, García F, Fernández-Bouzas A, et al. Follow-up study of learning-disabled children treated with neurofeedback or placebo. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2006;37(3):198–203. [DOI]
16. Mayer K, Blume F, Wyckoff SN, Brokmeier LL, Strehl U. Neurofeedback of slow cortical potentials as a treatment for adults with Attention Deficit-/Hyperactivity Disorder. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1374–86. [DOI]
17. Arns M, Drinkenburg W, Leon Kenemans J. The effects of QEEG-informed neurofeedback in ADHD: an open-label pilot study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2012;37(3):171–80. [DOI]
18. Fernández T, Harmony T, Fernández-Bouzas A, Díaz-Comas L, Prado-Alcalá RA, Valdés-Sosa P, et al. Changes in EEG current sources induced by neurofeedback in learning disabled children. An exploratory study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2007;32(3–4):169–83. [DOI]
19. Sadjadi SA, Akhondpour Manteghi A, Hashemian P. Evaluation of neurofeedback therapy in children with mathematic disorder in third-grade elementary school. Med J Mashhad Uni Med Sci. 2014;57(5):719–26. [Persian] [DOI]
20. Ghazi Asgar N, Malekpour M, Molavi H, Amiri S. Stress inoculation training on math anxiety and performance in elementary students with dyscalculia. Journal of Exceptional Children. 2010;9(4):309–20. [Persian] [Article]
21. Delavar A. Educational and Psychological Research. Tehran: Virayesh Publication; 2013. [Persian]
22. Connolly AJ. KeyMath Revised: A Diagnostic Inventory of Essential Mathematics: Manual, Forms A and B. American Guidance Service; 1988.
23. Mohammadesmaeil E, Hooman HA. Adaptation and Standardization of the IRAN KEY-MATH Test of Mathematics. Journal of Exceptional Children. 2003;2(4):323–32. [Persian] [Article]
24. Raven JC. Progressive Matrices: Sets A, B, C, D, and E. London; HK Lewis; 1938.
25. Baraheni MN, Asgharzadeh A, Shomali R, Razavi S, Khosroshahi A, Khamiri T. Hanjaryabi azmoon matricehaye pishravande Raven dar koodakan 5–11 sale Tehrani [Normalizing the raven coloure progressive matrices test on 5–11 years old childern of Tehran city]. In: First Congress on Psychiatry and Psychology. Tehran, Iran: Tehran Medical University; 1992. [Persian]
26. Rosvold HE, Mirsky AF, Sarason I, Bransome Jr. ED, Beck LH. A continuous performance test of brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1956;20(5):343–50. [DOI]
27. Golden CJ. Stroop Color and Word Test. Chicago, IL: Stoelting; 1978.
28. Hadianfard H, Najarian B, Shokrkon H, Mehrabizadeh Honarmand M. Construction and validation of the farsi version of the continuous performance test. Journal of Psychology. 2001;4(16):388–404. [Persian]
29. Beshavard S, Farzi Golfazani M. Comparing math- anxiety in dyscalculie and normal students of primary schools of Tehran. Journal of Exceptional Children. 2002;2(1):57–74. [Persian] [Article]
30. Gruzelier J. A theory of alpha/theta neurofeedback, creative performance enhancement, long distance functional connectivity and psychological integration. Cogn Process. 2009;10 Suppl 1:S101–9. [DOI]
31. Wangler S, Gevensleben H, Albrecht B, Studer P, Rothenberger A, Moll GH, et al. Neurofeedback in children with ADHD: specific event-related potential findings of a randomized controlled trial. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(5):942–50. [DOI]
32. Narimani M, Rajabi S, Delavar S. Effects of neurofeedback training on female students with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Arak University of Medical Sciences. 2013;16(2):91–103. [Persian] [Article]
33. Aliño Costa M, Gadea M, Hidalgo V, Pérez V, Sanjuán J. An effective neurofeedback training, with cortisol correlates, in a clinical case of anxiety. Univ Psychol. 2017;15(5). [DOI]
34. Clarke AR, Barry RJ, McCarthy R, Selikowitz M. EEG analysis of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid reading disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2002;35(3):276–85. [DOI]
35. Hamidi M, Ismaili F, editors. Chemotherapy and You. Tehran: Andisheh Mana Publication; 2005. [Persian]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
