Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
May 16, 2025
ADHD is associated with deficits in executive functions. These are mental processes that enable individuals to plan, focus attention, manage tasks, and regulate emotions. These skills encompass working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, which are crucial for goal-directed behavior and decision-making.
Working memory, which temporarily stores and processes information, contributes to language development by helping individuals make sense of what they read or hear.
Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to change perspectives, adapt thinking strategies, adjust to changing needs and priorities, recognize errors, and grasp opportunities.
Inhibition switching involves intentional control of attention and emotions, suppressing automatic responses when necessary to prevent inappropriate behavior.
These elements are critical to academic, social, and professional success.
An international study team (Li et al.) conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the efficacy of physical activity for improving executive functions among children with ADHD aged 6 to 12.
Meta-analysis of eleven RCTs encompassing 388 children reported a medium-to-large effect size improvement in cognitive flexibility. However, it found no benefit from aerobic exercise (such as running, jumping). When limited to the nine studies with 301 children that focused on cognitively engaging exercise (such as soccer and water sports that require constant monitoring of other players and strategizing), it found a large effect size improvement. Correcting for possible publication bias had no effect on the outcome.
Meta-analysis of nine RCTs totaling 398 children reported a large effect size improvement in working memory. Once again, it found no benefit from aerobic exercise. Focusing on the seven RCTs with 288 children that used cognitively engaging exercise, it found a very large effect size improvement. There was no sign of publication bias.
Meta-analysis of fourteen RCTs combining 579 children reported a small-to-medium effect size improvement in inhibition switching. But whereas it found a medium effect size improvement for shorter interventions of less than an hour (eight RCTs, 334 children), it found no benefit from interventions lasting an hour or more (six RCTs, 245 children. Again, there was no sign of publication bias.
The team concluded, “Our study shows that physical activity interventions have a positive effect on improving executive function in school-age children with ADHD, with cognitive-engaging exercises showing greater benefits across three executive function measures.”
A Chinese study team (Yang et al.) performed a related meta-analysis on the effect of exercise on inhibitory control in adults. Combining eight RCTs with a total of 372 participants, it reported a very large effect size improvement in inhibitory control, primarily from regular exercise. However, the effects were heavily influenced by a couple of outliers. The team claimed to have performed a sensitivity analysis but offered no evidence. Likewise, they noted signs of publication bias but did not use the standard trim-and-fill analysis to correct for it.
Another Chinese study team (Xiangqin Song et al.) examined the effect of exercise on working memory in children and adolescents.
Meta-analysis of 17 RCTs encompassing 419 participants found a medium effect size improvement in working memory. The large effect size improvement for cognitive aerobic exercise (4 RCTs, 233 participants) was twice the effect size for simple aerobic exercise (8 RCTs, 397 participants), though this meta-analysis still found a small-to-medium effect size gain from the latter. There was no sign of publication bias.
The team concluded, “The results indicate that cognitive-aerobic exercise and ball sports are significantly more effective than other types of exercise interventions in improving working memory. This difference may be attributed to the varying cognitive load, task complexity, and the degree of activation of executive functions across different exercise types. The findings suggest that when designing exercise interventions for children with ADHD, priority should be given to exercise types with higher cognitive load in order to more effectively enhance working memory.”
A joint Australian-U.S. team (Singh et al.) conducted a meta-meta-analysis on the effect of exercise on executive functions, that is, a meta-analysis of previous meta-analyses of RCTs.
Combining ten separate meta-analyses with well over 2,800 children and adolescents with ADHD, it reported large effect size improvements in executive functions overall. There was no further breakdown by type of executive function and type of physical activity.
The team concluded, “While exercise was seen to have a moderate and similar positive impact across all populations with respect to general cognition and memory, benefits for executive function were particularly marked in individuals with ADHD. This subgroup was unique in demonstrating a large effect size. This could be attributed to the task selection and the fact that many ADHD studies involved children. While the exact reason for this finding is unclear, there is evidence to suggest that impairments in executive function are common among individuals with ADHD. As such, it is plausible that this population may have a greater capacity for improvement due to starting from a lower baseline, compared with those with ‘normal’ executive function.”
Another Chinese study team (Yagang Song et al.) performed a meta-analysis of RCTs examining the effects of physical exercise on anxiety, depression, and emotion regulation among children and adolescents with ADHD.
Meta-analysis of eleven studies with a combined total of 384 participants reported a medium effect size reduction in symptoms of anxiety, with a dose-effect response. Physical exercise once a week had no significant effect, while twice a week was associated with a medium effect size reduction, and three or more times a week with a very large effect size improvement. Moderate intensity exercise was three times more effective than low intensity exercise.
Meta-analysis of seven studies encompassing 187 individuals similarly reported a medium effect size reduction in symptoms of depression. Once again, moderate intensity was far more effective than low intensity exercise.
Meta-analysis of seven studies totaling 429 children and adolescents reported a very large effect size improvement in emotion regulation, especially for physical exercise conducted at least twice a week.
There was no sign of publication bias in the anxiety, depression, or emotion regulation findings.
The team concluded, “Physical exercise demonstrated a substantial overall impact on enhancing anxiety, depression, and emotional regulation in children with ADHD, exhibiting a dose-response effect correlated with the period, frequency, duration, and intensity of the exercise. This investigation ... presents an additional evidence-based therapeutic approach for the considerable number of children with ADHD who are not appropriate candidates for pharmacological intervention.”
A joint U.S.-Hong Kong study team (Liu et al.) performed a meta-analysis exploring the effect of physical exercise on motor proficiency. Motor proficiency includes both gross motor skills (like walking and running) and fine motor skills (like writing and buttoning).
Meta-analysis of ten studies encompassing 413 children and adolescents with ADHD reported a very large effect size improvement in motor proficiency from physical exercise. The gains for object control, fine manual control, and manual coordination were roughly twice the gains for body coordination. There was no sign of publication bias.
Finally, a Spanish research team (González-Devesa et al.) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effect of exercise on objectively measured sleep status among persons with ADHD.
Meta-analysis of three RCTs with a combined total of 131 individuals that used accelerometers to measure sleep duration reported no significant effect one way or the other from exercise.
The team concluded, “The existing evidence regarding the use of exercise to manage sleep problems in individuals with ADHD remains inconclusive. Preliminary findings from this review suggest a potential positive effect of exercise on self-reported sleep quality; however, its efficacy in improving sleep duration could not be confirmed.”
The Take-Away:
An ideal exercise regimen for children with ADHD should focus on cognitively engaging physical activities rather than simple aerobic exercise. Sports and activities that require strategic thinking, attention to others’ actions, and rapid decision-making—such as soccer, martial arts, or water-based team sports—gave the best results, especially for working memory and cognitive flexibility. These types of exercise also show strong benefits for emotional regulation, reducing anxiety and depression, and enhancing motor proficiency.
To maximize benefits, the regimen should include moderate-intensity sessions at least two to three times per week, each lasting less than an hour, as longer durations appear less effective for improving inhibitory control. This structured, cognitively demanding approach offers an evidence-based, non-pharmacologic treatment option for children with ADHD, particularly for those who cannot or prefer not to use medication. We need, however, more work to determine if exercise will provide the same symptom reduction and protection from adverse outcomes as has been shown for medications.
Daniel González-Devesa, Miguel Adriano Sanchez-Lastra, José Carlos Diz-Gómez, and Carlos Ayán-Pérez, “Effectiveness of Exercise on Sleep Quality in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Children (2025) 12, 119, https://doi.org/10.3390/children12020119.
Dong Li, Chuyuan Miao, Deng Wang, and Chenmu Li, “Effect of physical activity interventions on executive functions in school-age children with ADHD: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Journal of Affective Disorders (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.01.155.
Hok Ling Venus Liu, Fenghua Sun, David I. Anderson, and Choi Yeung Andy Tse, “The Effect of Physical Activity Intervention on Motor Proficiency in Children and Adolescents with ADHD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Child Psychiatry & Human Development (2025) 56:177–191, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-023-01546-5.
Ben Singh, Hunter Bennett, Aaron Miatke, Dorothea Dumuid, Rachel Curtis, Ty Ferguson, Jacinta Brinsley, Kimberley Szeto, Jasmine M Petersen, Claire Gough, Emily Eglitis, Catherine EM Simpson, Christina L Ekegren, Ashleigh E Smith, Kirk I Erickson, and Carol Maher, “Effectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: a systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis,” British Journal of Sports Medicine (2025) 0:1-11, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108589.
Xiangqin Song, Yaoqi Hou, Wenying Shi, Yan Wang, Feifan Fan, and Liu Hong, “Exploring the impact of different types of exercise on working memory in children with ADHD: a network meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Psychology (2025) 16:1522944, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1522944.
Yagang Song, Shuqi Jia, Xing Wang, Aiwei Wang, Tao Ma, Shufan Li, Jiwei Che, Zhaohui Guo, Feng Ding, Yuxi Ren, and Man Qin, “Effects of physical exercise on anxiety, depression, and emotion regulation in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Pediatrics (2025) Vol. 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1479615.
Yi Yang, Chang-Hong Wu, Liang Sun, Ting-Ran Zhang, and Jiong Luo, “The impact of physical activity on inhibitory control of adult ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Global Health (2025) Vol. 15, 10.7189/jogh.15.04025.
A team of Spanish researchers has published a systematic review of 16 studies with a total of 728 participants exploring the effects of physical exercise on children and adolescents with ADHD. Fourteen studies were judged to be of high quality, and two of medium quality.
Seven studies looked at the acute effects of exercise on eight to twelve-year-old youths with ADHD. Acute means that the effects were measured immediately after periods of exercise lasting up to 30 minutes. Five studies used treadmills and two used stationary bicycles, for periods of five to 30 minutes. Three studies "showed a significant increase in the speed of reaction and precision of response after an intervention of 20-30 min, but at moderate intensity (50-75%)." Another study, however, found no improvement in mathematical problem-solving after 25 minutes using a stationary bicycle at low (40-50%) or moderate intensity (65-75%). The three others found improvements in executive functioning, planning, and organization in children after 20- to 30-minute exercise sessions.
Nine studies examined longer-term effects, following regular exercise over many weeks. One reported that twenty consecutive weekly yoga sessions improved attention. Another found that moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) led to improved behavior beginning in the third week, and improved motor, emotional and attentional control, by the end of five weeks. A third study reported that eight weeks of starting the school day with 30 minutes of physical activity led to improvement in Connor's ADHD scores, oppositional scores, and response inhibition. Another study found that twelve weeks of aerobic activity led to declines in bad mood and inattention. Yet another reported that thrice-weekly 45-minute sessions of MVPA over ten weeks improved not only muscle strength and motor skills, but also attention, response inhibition, and information processing.
Two seventy-minute table tennis per week over twelve weeks improved executive functioning and planning, in addition to locomotor and object control skills.
Two studies found a significant increase in brain activity. One involved two hour-long sessions of rowing per week for eight weeks, the other three 90-minute land-based sessions per week for six weeks. Both studies measured higher activation of the right frontal and right temporal lobes in children, and lower theta/alpha ratios in male adolescents.
All 16 studies found positive effects on cognition. Five of the nine longer-term studies found positive effects on behavior. No study found any negative effects. The authors of the review concluded that physical activity "improves executive functions, increases attention, contributes to greater planning capacity and processing speed and working memory, improves the behavior of students with ADHD in the learning context, and consequently improves academic performance." Although the data are limited by a lack of appropriate controls, they suggest that, in addition to the well-known positive effects of physical activity, one may expect to see improvements in ADHD symptoms and associated features, especially for periods of sustained exercise.
Noting that "Growing evidence shows that moderate physical activity (PA) can improve psychological health through enhancement of neurotransmitter systems," and "PA may play a physiological role similar to stimulant medications by increasing dopamine and norepinephrine neurotransmitters, thereby alleviating the symptoms of ADHD," a Chinese team of researchers performed a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed journal literature for studies exploring the effects of physical activity on ADHD symptoms.
They found nine before-after studies with a total of 232 participants, and fourteen two-group control studies with a total of 303 participants, that met the criteria for meta-analysis.
The meta-analysis of before-after studies found moderate reductions in inattention and moderate-to-strong reductions in hyperactivity/impulsivity. It also reported moderate reductions in emotional problems and small-to-moderate reductions in behavioral problems.
The effect was even stronger among unmediated participants. There was a very strong reduction in inattention and a strong reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity.
The meta-analysis of two-group control studies found strong reductions in inattention, but no effect on hyperactivity/impulsivity. It also found no significant effect on emotional and behavioral problems.
There was no sign of publication bias in any of the meta-analyses.
The authors concluded, "Our results suggest that PA intervention could improve ADHD-related symptoms, especially inattention symptoms. However, due to a lot of confounders, such as age, gender, ADHD subtypes, the lack of rigorous double-blinded randomized-control studies, and the inconsistency of the PA program, our results still need to be interpreted with caution."
Myth: ADHD medications "anesthetize" ADHD children.
The idea here is that the drug treatment of ADHD is no more than a chemical straightjacket intended to control a child's behavior to be less bothersome to parents and teachers. After all, everyone knows that if you shoot up a person with tranquilizers, they will calm down.
Fact: ADHD medications are neither anesthetics nor tranquilizers.
The truth of the matter is that most ADHD medications are stimulants. They don't anesthetize the brain; they stimulate it. By speeding up the transmission of dopamine signals in the brain, ADHD medications improve brain functioning, which in turn leads to an increased ability to pay attention and control behavior. The non-stimulant medications improve signaling by norepinephrine. They also improve the brain's ability to process signals. They are not sedatives or anesthetics. When taking their medication, ADHD patients can focus and control their behavior to be more effective in school, work, and relationships. They are not "drugged" into submission.
Myth: ADHD medications cause drug and alcohol abuse
We know from many long-term studies of ADHD children that when they reach adolescence and adulthood, they are at high risk for alcohol and drug use disorders. Because of this fact, some media reports have implied that their drug use was caused by treatment of their ADHD with stimulant medications.
Fact: ADHD medications do not cause drug and alcohol abuse
Some ADHD medications indeed use the same chemicals that are found in street drugs, such as amphetamine. But there is a very big difference between these medications and street drugs. When street drugs are injected or snorted, they can lead to addiction, but when they are taken in pill form as prescribed by a doctor, they do not cause addiction. When my colleagues and I examined the world literature on this topic, we found that rather than causing drug and alcohol abuse, stimulant medicine protected ADHD children from these problems later in life. One study from researchers at Harvard University and the Massachusetts General Hospital found that the drug treatment of ADHD reduced the risk for illicit drug use by84 a percent. These findings make intuitive sense. These medicines reduce the symptoms of the disorder that lead to illicit drug use. For example, an impulsive ADHD teenager who acts without thinking is much more likely to use drugs than an ADHD teen whose symptoms are controlled by medical drug treatment. After we published our study, other work appeared. Some of these studies did not agree that ADHD medications protected ADHD people from drug abuse, but they did not find that they caused drug abuse.
Myth: Psychological or behavioral therapies should be tried before medication.
Many people are cautious about taking medications, and that caution is even stronger when parents consider treatment options for their children. Because medications can have side effects, shouldn't people with ADHD try to talk therapy before taking medicine?
Fact: Treatment guidelines suggest that medication is the first-line treatment.
The problem with trying talk or behavior therapy before medication is that medication works much better. For ADHD adults, one type of talk therapy(cognitive behavioral therapy) is recommended, but only when the patient is also taking medication. The multimodal treatment of ADHD (MTA) study examined this issue in ADHD children from several academic medical centers in the United States. That study found that treating ADHD with medication was better than treating it with behavior therapy. Importantly, behavior therapy plus medication was no more effective than medication alone. That is why treatment guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Children and Adolescents recommend medicine as a first-line treatment for ADHD, except for preschool children. ADHD medications indeed have side effects, but these are usually mild and typically do not interfere with treatment. And don't forget about the risks that a patient faces when they do not use medications for ADHD. These untreated patients are at risk for worsening ADHD symptoms and complications.
Myth: Brain abnormalities of ADHD patients are caused by psychiatric medications
A large scientific literature shows that ADHD people have subtle problems with the structure and function of their brains. Scientists believe that these problems are the cause of ADHD symptoms. Critics of ADHD claim that these brain problems are caused by the medications used to treat ADHD. Who is right?
Fact: Brain abnormalities are found in never medicated ADHD patients.
Alan Zametkin, a scientist at the US National Institute of Mental Health, was the first to show brain abnormalities in ADHD patients who had never been treated for their ADHD. He found that some parts of the brains of ADHD patients were underactive. His findings could not be due to medication because the patients had never been medicated. Since his study, many other researchers have used neuroimaging to examine the brains of ADHD patients. This work confirmed Dr. Zametkin’s observation of abnormal brain findings in unmediated patients. Reviews of the brain imaging literature have concluded that the brain abnormalities seen in ADHD cannot be attributed to ADHD medications.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition rooted in delayed or atypical maturation of the prefrontal cortex (the brain region that governs self-regulation). This maturational lag underlies the hallmark difficulties with attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and also impairs what researchers call executive function: the cognitive toolkit we rely on for working memory, impulse control, mental flexibility, emotional regulation, and the ability to tolerate delays in reward.
The Background:
Standard treatments work through two main routes. Stimulant and non-stimulant medications are considered very safe and effective treatments, but are not without risk of side effects and are not appropriate for every ADHD patient. Behavioral and psychosocial interventions can improve self-regulation and social functioning, but they require sustained effort and produce variable results. These limitations have kept the search for better alternatives active.
One candidate that has drawn growing attention is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The technique is appealingly simple: a weak electrical current is applied to the scalp through small electrodes, modulating the excitability of neurons in the underlying cortex without requiring surgery, anesthesia, or significant discomfort. Its safety profile and ease of use have made it attractive to researchers.
The Study:
A newly published meta-analysis set out to give the technique its most rigorous test yet, pooling results from randomized controlled trials, including crossover designs, that compared active tDCS against sham stimulation in people with ADHD across all age groups.
The Results:
The findings were consistently null. Across seven trials enrolling 303 participants, tDCS produced no significant reduction in overall ADHD symptom severity compared with sham. Breaking symptoms into their components made no difference: neither hyperactivity/impulsivity nor inattention improved. Turning to executive function, 18 studies with 872 participants found no meaningful gain in inhibitory control, and 12 studies with 506 participants found the same for working memory. Smaller bodies of evidence, including three studies on cognitive flexibility (122 participants) and two on hot executive function, the motivational and emotional dimension of self-regulation (86 participants), similarly came up empty. Variation in outcomes across studies was small to moderate, and there was no evidence of publication bias skewing the picture.
The authors’ conclusion was succinct: tDCS was well tolerated but “did not demonstrate significant overall efficacy for core ADHD symptoms or executive functions.”
_logo%201.svg)
