Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training was superior to central executive training for improving set shifting accuracy in children with ADHD, with a medium-to-large treatment-by-time interaction and ICT producing

Effect: improvement; d = 0.63

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59

Inhibitory control training produced significant improvements in set shifting speed on the Global-Local task, though this finding should be considered tentative given the non-significant omnibus treat

Effect: improvement; d = 0.59