The essentials in 30 seconds
One study is often cited to support the claim that the effects of neurofeedback in children with a learning disorder last two years after training. What exactly does it say, and what can reasonably be concluded from it? Here is a critical look at the study, to help you make up your own mind.
What is this study?
It is a 2006 article in the journal Clinical EEG and Neuroscience by J. Becerra, T. Fernández, T. Harmony and colleagues, a Mexican research team. It follows up an earlier study by the same team, published in 2003 in Clinical Electroencephalography, which compared children trained with neurofeedback with children given a placebo.
| Item | What we know |
|---|---|
| Reference | Becerra J. et al., Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 2006, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 198-203 |
| Original study | Fernández T. et al., Clinical Electroencephalography, 2003, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 145-152 |
| Children | Children with a learning disorder and a theta/alpha ratio higher than the norm for their age |
| Sample size | 10 children in the original study, divided into two groups |
| Training | 20 half-hour sessions, twice a week, to learn to reduce the theta/alpha ratio |
| Control group | Same sessions, but with rewards unrelated to brain activity (placebo) |
| Measures | Quantitative EEG, cognitive assessment (Wechsler scale, WISC) and behaviour |
| Follow-up period | Two years after the end of training |
Why talk about EEG “maturation”?
In children, the brain’s electrical activity changes with age: the proportion of slow waves (theta) decreases and faster rhythms such as alpha take over. These researchers interpret a theta/alpha ratio that is high for the child’s age as a maturational lag in the EEG. The training therefore aimed to help the child lower this ratio, using a reward given in real time.
What the authors report
Trained groupneurofeedback
- At the end of training (2003): better WISC results and a more “mature” EEG
- Two years later: EEG maturation had continued
- Positive changes in behaviour, which the authors describe as a remission of the symptoms of the learning disorder
Placebo grouprandom rewards
- At the end of training: no change in behaviour, slight EEG changes explained by age
- Two years later: the EEG maturational lag had increased, with abnormally high theta activity
- The learning disorder diagnosis still applies
This result is interesting: it suggests that changes achieved during training might be maintained, or even continue, while in the placebo group the gap with children of the same age was widening.
Why caution is needed
A very small sample
Around ten children in total: the progress of a single child is enough to sway a group’s results.
A loosely defined group
The children were selected on the basis of an EEG criterion and had a learning disorder in the broad sense, so we do not know which specific learning disorder (such as dyslexia or dyscalculia) the results apply to.
A single team
All the work comes from the same research group. To our knowledge, this two-year follow-up has not been replicated by other teams with larger samples.
Two years is a long time
School, therapy, the child’s own development: over such a long period, it is hard to isolate the part played by training alone.
Finally, the article is not open access: only its abstract and references are available to the general public, which limits how far its details can be checked.
These five simple questions help you judge how robust any study is, whether on neurofeedback or on any other approach.
What has research shown since?
In France, the 2018 guide by the French National Authority for Health (HAS) on the care pathway for children with specific learning difficulties does not mention neurofeedback. It describes a coordinated pathway combining medical diagnosis, specialist therapy and classroom adjustments.
What we take from it at Centre Élan
This study opened up a line of enquiry: quantitative EEG can describe a profile of brain activity, guide personalised training and make it possible to track changes over time. However, it does not support the claim that neurofeedback makes a specific learning difficulty disappear.
We therefore offer it as complementary training, focused on attention, arousal level and self-regulation, working with the speech and language therapist and the school. For practical arrangements, read supporting a child with specific learning difficulties: speech and language therapy, school and neurofeedback; to understand the cognitive functions involved, see learning disorders: the functions involved. You can find out how the assessment works on our qEEG assessment page.
Frequently asked questions
Does this study prove that neurofeedback makes specific learning difficulties disappear?
No. It involves around ten children and has not been replicated on a large scale. Its results are encouraging but still need to be confirmed, and recent reviews consider the evidence insufficient.
Does my child necessarily have an “immature” EEG?
No. The children in this study were selected precisely because their EEG showed this profile. Every child is different: that is the point of an individual qEEG assessment, although it does not replace a medical diagnosis.
Can neurofeedback replace speech and language therapy?
No. Speech and language therapy works on written or spoken language; neurofeedback targets cross-cutting resources such as attention. The two can complement each other, in coordination with the child’s doctor.
Sources
- Becerra J., Fernández T., Harmony T. et al. (2006). Follow-up study of learning-disabled children treated with neurofeedback or placebo. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 37(3), 198-203 (PubMed 16929704)
- Fernández T., Herrera W., Harmony T. et al. (2003). EEG and behavioral changes following neurofeedback treatment in learning disabled children. Clinical Electroencephalography, 34(3), 145-152
- Fernández T. et al. (2016). Neurofeedback in learning disabled children: visual versus auditory reinforcement. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 41(1), 27-37
- Breteler M.H.M. et al. (2010). Improvements in spelling after QEEG-based neurofeedback in dyslexia: a randomized controlled treatment study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 35(1), 5-11
- López-Zamora M. et al. (2026). Efficacy of neurofeedback in the treatment of dyslexia: a systematic review. Annals of Dyslexia, 76(1), 137-155
- HAS (2018). Troubles dys: comment mieux organiser le parcours de santé? Guide parcours de santé [Specific learning difficulties (“dys” disorders): how can the care pathway be better organised? Care pathway guide]