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.
X
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.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)—a pattern of chronic irritability, anger, arguing, or defiance—is one of the most challenging behavioral conditions families and clinicians face.
A new study involving 2,400 children ages 3–17 offers one of the clearest pictures yet. Using parent-reported data from the Pediatric Behavior Scale, researchers compared how often ODD appears in Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD-Combined presentation (ADHD-C), ADHD-Inattentive presentation (ADHD-I), and those with both ASD and ADHD.
Results:
Children with ADHD-Combined presentation show both hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention. They had the highest ODD rates of any single diagnosis: 53% of kids with ADHD-Combined met criteria for ODD.
But when autism was added to ADHD-Combined, the prevalence jumped to 62%. This group also had the highest overall ODD scores, suggesting more severe or more impairing symptoms.
This synergy matters: while autism alone increases ODD risk, the presence of ADHD-Combined is what pushes prevalence into the majority range. Other groups showed lower, but still significant, rates of ODD:
These findings echo what clinicians often see: children with inattentive ADHD, while struggling significantly with attention and learning, tend to show fewer behavioral conflict patterns than those with hyperactive/impulsive symptoms.
It is important to note that ODD is considered to have two main components. Across all diagnostic groups, ODD consistently broke down into these two components: either Irritable/Angry (emotion-based) or Oppositional/Defiant (behavior-based). But the balance between these components differed depending on diagnosis. Notably, Autism + ADHD-Combined showed higher levels of the irritable/angry component than ADHD-Combined alone. The oppositional/defiant component did not differ much between groups. This suggests that autism elevates the emotional side of ODD more than the behavioral side, which is important for clinicians to note before tailoring interventions.
The study notes that autism, ADHD, and ODD often cluster together, with 55–90% comorbidity in some combinations.
As the authors explain, “The high co-occurrence of ADHD-Combined in autism (80% in our study) largely explains the high prevalence of ODD in autism.”
Clinical Implications: Why This Study Matters
The researchers point to a straightforward recommendation: clinicians shouldn’t evaluate these conditions in isolation. A child referred for autism concerns might also be struggling with ADHD. A child referred for ADHD might have undiagnosed ODD. And ignoring one disorder can undermine treatment for the others.
Evidence-based interventions (behavioral therapy, parent training, school supports, and/or medication) can reduce symptoms across all three diagnoses while improving long-term outcomes, including overall quality of life.
Background:
Sleep is more than simple rest. When discussing sleep, we tend to focus on the quantity rather than the quality, how many hours of sleep we get versus the quality or depth of sleep. Duration is an important part of the picture, but understanding the stages of sleep and how certain mental health disorders affect those stages is a crucial part of the discussion.
Sleep is an active mental process where the brain goes through distinct phases of complex electrical rhythms. These phases can be broken down into non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM). The non-rapid eye movement phase consists of three stages of the four stages of sleep, referred to as N1, N2(light sleep), and N3(deep sleep). N4 is the REM phase, during which time vivid dreaming typically occurs.
Two of the most important measurable brain rhythms occur during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. These electrical rhythms are referred to as slow waves and sleep spindles. Slow waves reflect deep, restorative sleep, while spindles are brief bursts of brain activity that support memory and learning.
The Study:
A new research review has compiled data on how these sleep oscillations differ across psychiatric conditions. The findings suggest that subtle changes in nightly brain rhythms may hold important clues about a range of disorders, from ADHD to schizophrenia.
The Results:
People with ADHD showed increased slow-spindle activity, meaning those brief bursts of NREM activity were more frequent or stronger than in people without ADHD. Why this happens isn’t fully understood, but it may reflect differences in how the ADHD brain organizes information during sleep. Evidence for slow-wave abnormalities was mixed, suggesting that deep sleep disruption is not a consistent hallmark of ADHD.
Among individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), results were less consistent. However, some studies pointed to lower “spindle chirp” (the subtle shift in spindle frequency over time) and reduced slow-wave amplitude. Lower amplitude suggests that the brain’s deep-sleep signals may be weaker or less synchronized. Researchers are still working to understand how these patterns relate to sensory processing, learning differences, or daytime behavior.
People with depression tended to show reduced slow-wave activity and fewer or weaker sleep spindles, but this pattern appeared most strongly in patients taking antidepressant medications. Since antidepressants can influence sleep architecture, researchers are careful not to overinterpret the changes. Nevertheless, these changes raise interesting questions about how both depression and its treatments shape the sleeping brain.
In post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the trend moved in the opposite direction. Patients showed higher spindle frequency and activity, and these changes were linked to symptom severity which suggests that the brain may be “overactive” during sleep in ways that relate to hyperarousal or intrusive memories. This strengthens the idea that sleep physiology plays a role in how traumatic memories are processed.
The clearest and most reliable findings emerged in psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Across multiple studies, individuals showed: Lower spindle density (fewer spindles overall), reduced spindle amplitude and duration, correlations with symptom severity, and cognitive deficits.
Lower slow-wave activity also appeared, especially in the early phases of illness. These results echo earlier research suggesting that sleep spindles, which are generated by thalamocortical circuits, might offer a window into the neural disruptions that underlie psychosis.
The Take-Away:
The review concludes with a key message: While sleep disturbances are clearly present across psychiatric conditions, the field needs larger, better-standardized, and more longitudinal studies. With more consistent methods and longer follow-ups, researchers may be able to determine whether these oscillations can serve as reliable biomarkers or future treatment targets.
For now, the take-home message is that the effects of these mental health disorders on sleep are real and measurable.
_logo%201.svg)
