Lesser-Known ADHD Methods: Which Hold Promise and Which Fizzled

In the first months after the diagnosis I clicked on every headline that had the word "new" in it. A new sound, a new device, a new app. Their promise was more or less the same: without medication, easy, at home.

I still see these headlines, and I still feel that small "maybe this time" stirring inside. The difference is this: now I ask a question before clicking. Who tried this method, on how many people, compared with what?

In this article I looked at five methods that have come up in recent years with that question. Two carry a cautious hope, one is still experimental, one is weaker than it is marketed, and one fizzled in a large study. At the end I gathered the questions you can ask when you meet a new method.

First two words: control and sham

To understand whether a method works, you have to compare the group that receives it with a group that does not, but in which everything else is the same. In device studies this comparison group uses a "sham" device: one that looks the same from outside, is worn for the same time, but does not deliver the real stimulation.

We saw why this matters so much with neurofeedback. When parents who knew the treatment reported improvement, the picture looked bright; when the evaluation became blinded, the effect disappeared. I told that story in the neurofeedback article. I tried to read the five methods below with the same eye.

White and pink noise: small but consistent

This is the suggestion that circulates most on social media: turning on a rustling sound in the background while you work. White noise carries all frequencies equally and resembles television static. In pink and brown noise the low frequencies are more dominant, and to the ear they sound like rain or a waterfall.

The meta-analysis published by Nigg and colleagues in 2024 combined 13 studies (335 participants) done with children and university-age young people who had an ADHD diagnosis or high ADHD symptoms. In the laboratory, on tasks demanding attention, white and pink noise increased performance. The effect was small (g≈0.25) but consistent across studies. In comparison groups without ADHD, the same noise lowered performance (g≈−0.21). Not even a single study testing brown noise could be found (Nigg et al., 2024).

I took a few things from this.

There is no ADHD evidence for brown noise. Its absence does not show that it does not work. But every post that begins "brown noise silences the ADHD brain" is talking about research that has not yet been done.

The results come from the laboratory. What was measured was computer tasks of a few minutes. Finishing a thesis chapter or working half a day in an office was not measured. We do not know how it performs in adults, in a real work environment.

It may work the other way for the person next to you. This finding told me something very everyday. If the person working in the same room does not have ADHD, the noise you turn on through the speaker may collect your attention while scattering theirs. This is why headphones are a good idea.

The volume level is unknown. The authors write plainly that which decibel level is safe and sufficient has not yet been determined. Starting at a low volume and not listening loudly for hours is at least a reasonable limit for your ears.

Because it is low-risk, free and easy to try, this is the method I can recommend most comfortably on this list. Still, it has to be thought of as something that helps "a little."

Chronotherapy: melatonin timing and morning light

In a significant part of adults with ADHD, the inner clock has shifted backward. The sleep signal arrives late in the evening, and in the morning the body is still in night mode. Chronotherapy means trying to pull this clock forward with medication or light.

A three-arm study done in the Netherlands divided 51 adults with ADHD and delayed sleep phase into three groups. All received sleep education. For three weeks one group took placebo, one group took low-dose melatonin, and one group received half an hour of bright light between 07:00 and 08:00 in the morning in addition to melatonin. Melatonin moved the inner clock earlier by about 1.5 hours and reduced the participants' self-reported ADHD symptoms by about 14 percent. In the group with added light the inner clock shifted a little further forward, but no significant reduction was seen in symptoms. Two weeks after treatment ended, both the inner clock and the symptoms had returned to where they started (van Andel et al., 2021).

The same team looked at sleep itself too. Even though the inner clock had moved forward, people's sleep times had not come forward. The authors' conclusion is this: moving the inner clock earlier is not enough on its own; intensive behavioral coaching is needed for the sleep time to follow it (van Andel et al., 2022).

What drew my attention most in these two studies was the timing. Melatonin was not given at a random hour. The hour at which melatonin release began was measured in each participant's saliva, and the dose was planned according to that hour. This is not the same as what is done at home with the logic of "one before bed."

That is why the decision on melatonin, its dose and its time has to be discussed with a doctor. Sleep problems can also be related to ADHD medications, to anxiety or to other sleep disorders, and telling these apart requires an assessment. Going out into morning light, on the other hand, is already a low-risk habit. Only in this study was no added contribution to symptoms seen from it; knowing this, it is good to set your expectation accordingly.

A video game as treatment

In 2020 in the US a video game was cleared as a prescription treatment for children aged 8-12 with ADHD: EndeavorRx. It is an app in the form of a video game, designed to train attention and cognitive control. In the glossary we call this a digital therapeutic.

In the study behind the clearance, 348 children played either this game or another digital game prepared for comparison, five days a week for 25 minutes a day, for four weeks. The primary measure was a computerized attention test, and the game group showed more improvement than the control group. The side effects were mild: the most common were frustration and headache (Kollins et al., 2020).

Two details matter here. The first is that the company that developed the game financed the study, and two of the authors were company employees. The second is that in the ADHD symptoms rated by parents and in daily functioning both groups improved, but the difference between them was not statistically significant. The company's own site also says this. So the game changed the score on an attention test, but it could not be shown that this carried over to life at home and at school.

In 2024 an over-the-counter version for adults (EndeavorOTC) was cleared by the same body. The study it rested on, with 221 adults, was single-arm: it had no comparison group. Without a comparison group, it is impossible to separate how much of the improvement seen came from the game, and how much from expectation, getting used to it, or change that comes by itself over time.

These products were developed for the US. I could not find any information that they are officially offered in Türkiye. As for the "ADHD games" that show up in app stores under similar names, most of them do not have even this much research.

tDCS at home: a single promising trial

Transcranial stimulation is the general name for methods that try to stimulate the brain through the scalp with a weak current or a magnetic field. tDCS is one of them: a very weak direct current is given between two electrodes placed on the scalp.

The TUNED study done in Brazil divided 64 adults with ADHD who were not using stimulant medication into two groups. For four weeks, one group applied real tDCS at home every day for half an hour and the other group applied sham tDCS. Neither the participants nor the evaluators knew which group they were in. At the end of the four weeks, the group receiving real stimulation had markedly fewer inattention symptoms than the sham group. Mild side effects were more frequent in the real-stimulation group: skin redness, headache and a burn on the scalp (Leffa et al., 2022).

This is a well-designed study and its result is promising. Still, it was done at a single center with 64 people and was limited to four weeks. People with moderate and severe depression, anxiety or some other diagnoses were not included in the study. The device used had been developed by some of the authors of the study, who receive income from its patent. The article itself reports this openly. Other teams need to find the same result again in large studies.

Do not buy a device and try it on your own. There are tDCS devices sold online as "brain stimulators for focus," and interest has grown since this study. Please do not buy one of them and try it on yourself. The device in the study was set specially for a particular current, a particular duration and a particular electrode placement, the participants first received training, and who was suitable was assessed by specialists. Even so, a burn on the scalp was seen in the real-stimulation group. Placing an electrode a few centimeters in the wrong spot, setting the current wrong, or someone unsuitable using it means applying something to your brain without knowing what you are doing. Today this method is used only within research. If you are curious, ask your doctor or apply to a study that accepts volunteers. If after an application you get a burn on the skin or an unexpected symptom, see a doctor; in an emergency call 112.

Trigeminal nerve stimulation: the one that faded after approval

This is the most instructive story on this list.

The trigeminal nerve is a nerve that carries sensation from the face. In the method a patch is attached to the forehead during sleep at night, and a small device connected by a wire gives a low-level electrical stimulus to this nerve. In 2019 a small blinded pilot study with a sham device, done with 62 children, reported improvement in symptoms. The same year the US cleared this device for children aged 7-12 who were not using medication. It made the news as the first non-drug device cleared for ADHD.

Then a larger confirmation study, carried out at multiple centers in England, was done. 150 children and adolescents used either the real or the sham device for about nine hours every night for four weeks and were followed for six months. No significant difference in ADHD symptoms emerged between the real device and the sham device. The device was safe and the side effects were similar in both groups, but it could not be shown to work (Conti et al., 2026).

So: a small study, a fast clearance, a wide wave of news, and then an effect close to zero in a larger study. Learning this sequence taught me more than the individual findings did.

Why a method arrives with excitement and fades

These five stories have a shared pattern.

The first studies are small. In small studies large effects can come out by chance. When repeated with more people, the effect usually shrinks, sometimes disappears.

Expectation is strong. A new device, a patch worn every night, a game progressing on the screen... All of them give the feeling that "I am doing something." Because a significant part of ADHD symptoms is measured by the report of the person or the parent, this feeling can mix into the results. Sham-device and blinded studies exist precisely to separate this.

Who pays. A study financed by the company that will sell the product is not automatically wrong. But without repetition by independent teams it cannot be counted as sufficient on its own.

Clearance is not where the evidence ends. A device getting clearance to be sold in the US does not mean its effect has been shown in large and repeated studies. The clearance of trigeminal nerve stimulation rested on a single pilot study of 62 children.

The news does not follow the correction. The first result becomes the headline, and the study that refutes it is talked about far less. That is why most of the articles online that praise a method are unaware of the study that came afterward.

Questions you can ask when you see a new method

When a headline catches your attention you can ask these questions in order. When one of the questions goes unanswered, I now keep my excitement waiting a little.

1. Is there a control group? Were those who received the method compared with a similar group that did not?
2. Is it blinded? Did the participants and the people evaluating the result know who got the real treatment? If it is a device, was a sham device used?
3. How many people? A study of a few dozen people can be an interesting sign, but it does not yet count as an answer.
4. What was measured? A computer test, or the symptoms and functioning in daily life?
5. Who financed it? Do the authors have a tie to the product or the company? The conflict of interest section at the end of articles says this.
6. Was it repeated? Did another team, somewhere else, find the same result?
7. Who was it tried on? On children, on adults, on people taking medication? How close is the result to your situation?

I use the equivalent of these questions for the bookshelf too. I explained that side in the article where I wrote about why most ADHD books do not help.

Those that are free to try and low in risk

Some of the methods in this article ask for a device, a prescription or a doctor. Meanwhile, I have also written in this series three methods that you can try today without buying anything and whose research goes back more years.

• If-then plans: Small plans built in the form "If X happens, I will do Y." There is a long research history on turning intention into action, including studies done with children with ADHD.
• Vividly imagining the future: Bringing a distant reward closer in your mind can raise the value of what is left for later a little.
• Temptation bundling: Pairing a boring job with a pleasure that you set aside only for that job.

These do not promise miracles. But you can begin with paper and a pen, and if it does not work, your loss is a few minutes.

Keeping the excitement waiting

While writing this article I got to know my weakness for the word "new" a little better. A new method feels very attractive to a mind that likes novelty. And for a long time I mistook that novelty for hope.

I no longer throw the excitement away, I only keep it waiting. I ask about the control group, the sham device, the number of people, the financing and the repetition. If the answers come out good, the excitement settles on firmer ground. If they come out bad, I am left with both my money and my hope.