This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
UNSTRUCTURED This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of a newly developed virtual reality-based cognitive control training game for children with ADHD symptoms. Specifically, the study focused on exploring the sustainability of the training through a three-month follow-up evaluation and analyzing training response patterns and influential factors. A total of 29 children (21 males and 8 females) and adolescents aged 10 to 14 years participated in the study. Their mean intelligence quotient (IQ) was 94 (SD = 16.53). Measurements included the Korean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (K-WISC-IV), the Stroop Test, the Color Trails Test, the National Institutes of Health Toolbox, and the Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL). Each participant was required to engage in a minimum of 20 minutes of daily training for 20 consecutive days, with an initial assessment followed by post-training and follow-up evaluations. The repeated measures ANOVA results showed significant main effects for the Stroop color-word test (F = 5.22, p = 0.008, ηp² = 0.162), CBCL Total Problems (F = 20.361, p < .001, ηp² = 0.430), CBCL Attention Problems (F = 11.772, p < .001, ηp² = 0.304), and CBCL ADHD (F = 3.406, p = 0.040, ηp² = 0.112). Post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between the initial assessment and subsequent evaluations. K-means clustering demonstrated three distinct clusters, with Clusters 1 and 3 showing significant differences in IQ variables and training effectiveness. he results showed that the newly developed VR-based cognitive control training game effectively improved ADHD-related symptoms, with training effects persisting three months after the training period. The training effects were influenced by IQ. CoConUp might be expected to contribute as a promising future therapeutic intervention. CRIS number: KCT0009447 (from March 08, 2021).
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: