This meta-analysis investigated the effects of computerized cognitive training (CCT) on clinical, neuropsychological and academic outcomes in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors searched PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science until 19th January 2022 for parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using CCT in individuals with ADHD. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) between CCT and comparator arms. RCT quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (PROSPERO: CRD42021229279). Thirty-six RCTs were meta-analysed, 17 of which evaluated working memory training (WMT). Analysis of outcomes measured immediately post-treatment and judged to be “probably blinded” (PBLIND; trialn = 14) showed no effect on ADHD total (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI[−0.01 to −0.25]) or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms (SMD = 0.12, 95%[−0.03 to−0.28]). These findings remained when analyses were restricted to trials (n: 5–13) with children/adolescents, low medication exposure, semi-active controls, or WMT or multiple process training. There was a small improvement in inattention symptoms (SMD = 0.17, 95%CI[0.02–0.31]), which remained when trials were restricted to semi-active controls (SMD = 0.20, 95%CI[0.04–0.37]), and doubled in size when assessed in the intervention delivery setting (n = 5, SMD = 0.40, 95%CI[0.09–0.71]), suggesting a setting-specific effect. CCT improved WM (verbal:n = 15, SMD = 0.38, 95%CI[0.24–0.53]; visual-spatial:n = 9, SMD = 0.49, 95%CI[0.31–0.67]), but not other neuropsychological (e.g., attention, inhibition) or academic outcomes (e.g., reading, arithmetic; analysedn: 5–15). Longer-term improvement (at ~6-months) in verbal WM, reading comprehension, and ratings of executive functions were observed but relevant trials were limited in number (n: 5–7). There was no evidence that multi-process training was superior to working memory training. In sum, CCT led to shorter-term improvements in WM, with some evidence that verbal WM effects persisted in the longer-term. Clinical effects were limited to small, setting specific, short-term effects on inattention symptoms.

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), given some evidence for improvements in cognition and clinical symptoms. However, despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS and tDCS are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically appraise rTMS and tDCS studies in ADHD to inform good research and clinical practice. Methods: A systematic search (up to February 2019) identified 18 studies (rTMS 4, tDCS 14; 311 children and adults with ADHD) stimulating mainly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). We included 12 anodal tDCS studies (232 children and adults with ADHD) in 3 random-effects meta-analyses of cognitive measures of attention, inhibition and processing speed. Results: The review of rTMS and tDCS showed positive effects in some functions but not others, and little evidence for clinical improvement. The meta-analyses of 1 to 5 sessions of anodal tDCS over mainly the left or bilateral dlPFC showed trend-level improvements in inhibition and processing speed, but not in attention. Limitations: Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient age and outcome measures limited the interpretation of findings. Conclusion: The review and meta-analysis showed limited evidence that 1 to 5 sessions of rTMS and tDCS, mostly of the dlPFC, improved clinical or cognitive measures of ADHD. These findings did not support using rTMS or tDCS of the dlPFC as an alternative neurotherapy for ADHD as yet. Larger, multi-session stimulation studies identifying more optimal sites and stimulation parameters in combination with cognitive training could achieve larger effects.

In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are “the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science.” They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all “small” effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a method of non-invasive brain stimulation widely used to modulate cognitive functions. Recent studies, however, suggests that effects are unreliable, small and often non-significant at least when stimulation is applied in a single session to healthy individuals. We examined the effects of frontal and temporal lobe anodal tDCS on naming and reading tasks and considered possible interactions with linguistic activation and selection mechanisms as well as possible interactions with item difficulty and participant individual variability. Across four separate experiments (N, Exp 1A = 18; 1B = 20; 1C = 18; 2 = 17), we failed to find any difference between real and sham stimulation. Moreover, we found no evidence of significant effects limited to particular conditions (i.e., those requiring suppression of semantic interference), to a subset of participants or to longer RTs. Our findings sound a cautionary note on using tDCS as a means to modulate cognitive performance. Consistent effects of tDCS may be difficult to demonstrate in healthy participants in reading and naming tasks, and be limited to cases of pathological neurophysiology and/or to the use of learning paradigms.

Recent reviews quantifying the effects of single sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (or tDCS) in healthy volunteers find only minor effects on cognition despite the popularity of this technique. Here, we wanted to quantify the effects of tDCS on language production tasks that measure word reading and picture naming. We reviewed 14 papers measuring tDCS effects across a total of 96 conditions to a) quantify effects of conventional stimulation on language regions (i.e., left hemisphere anodal tDCS administered to temporal/frontal areas) under normal conditions or under conditions of cognitive (semantic) interference; b) identify parameters which may moderate the size of the tDCS effect within conventional stimulation protocols (e.g., online vs offline, high vs. low current densities, and short vs. long durations), as well as within types of stimulation not typically explored by previous reviews (i.e., right hemisphere anodal tDCS or left/right hemisphere cathodal tDCS). In all analyses there was no significant effect of tDCS, but we did find a small but significant effect of time and duration of stimulation with stronger effects for offline stimulation and for shorter durations (< 15min). We also found some indication of publication bias towards reporting positive effects. We encourage further experimentation in order resolve the disparity between the current popularity of tDCS and its poor efficacy in healthy participants.