Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 24, Issue 152 (10-2025)
Journal of Psychological Science 2025, 24(152): 297-315 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Golayj F, Ebrahimi Jozani S, Sepahmansour M. (2025). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Neurofeedback and Captain’s Log Software on the Enhancement of Attention and Concentration in Female Elementary School Students. Journal of Psychological Science. 24(152), 297-315. doi:10.61186/jps.24.152.17
URL: http://psychologicalscience.ir/article-1-3062-en.html
URL: http://psychologicalscience.ir/article-1-3062-en.html
Department General Psychology, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. , Shjozany@yahoo.com
Abstract: (217 Views)
Background: Attention and concentration are among the most important cognitive functions affecting learning and academic performance in elementary school students. Strengthening these functions during the early years of schooling plays a significant role in improving educational processes and cognitive-behavioral adaptation. In this regard, innovative interventions such as neurofeedback and Captain’s Log software have attracted increasing attention in recent years as non-invasive approaches aimed at enhancing cognitive processes. Therefore, examining their effectiveness in female elementary school students is of considerable scientific and practical importance.
Aims: The present study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of neurofeedback and Captain’s Log software in enhancing attention and concentration among female elementary school students.
Methods: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with pre-test, post-test, and a two-month follow-up, along with a control group. The statistical population consisted of fourth-grade female elementary school students in District 5 of Tehran during the 2019–2020 academic year. From among them, 90 students were selected using a multi-stage cluster random sampling method and were randomly assigned to three groups: Captain’s Log, neurofeedback, and control. The research instrument was the Continuous Performance Test (Mackworth, 1984), which was used to assess attention and concentration. The first experimental group received 15 sessions of 30 to 40 minutes of training using Captain’s Log software, while the second experimental group received 15 sessions of neurofeedback intervention. The control group received no intervention. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni and Tukey post hoc tests in SPSS version 25.
Results: The results indicated that for both variables of attention and concentration, the effects of time, group, and the time × group interaction were statistically significant (p < .05). In addition, the results of the Bonferroni test showed that the mean differences among the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up stages were significant for both variables (p < .05). Furthermore, the results of Tukey’s test revealed that neurofeedback was more effective than Captain’s Log in improving attention and concentration (p < .05).
Conclusion: These findings indicate that interventions based on cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation can play an effective role in improving students’ cognitive functions, particularly in the domains of attention and concentration. The superiority of neurofeedback may be attributed to its more direct impact on the regulation of brain activity and the enhancement of cognitive self-regulation processes. Overall, the application of these interventions, especially neurofeedback, may be considered an appropriate approach for improving the academic and cognitive performance of elementary school students.
Aims: The present study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of neurofeedback and Captain’s Log software in enhancing attention and concentration among female elementary school students.
Methods: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with pre-test, post-test, and a two-month follow-up, along with a control group. The statistical population consisted of fourth-grade female elementary school students in District 5 of Tehran during the 2019–2020 academic year. From among them, 90 students were selected using a multi-stage cluster random sampling method and were randomly assigned to three groups: Captain’s Log, neurofeedback, and control. The research instrument was the Continuous Performance Test (Mackworth, 1984), which was used to assess attention and concentration. The first experimental group received 15 sessions of 30 to 40 minutes of training using Captain’s Log software, while the second experimental group received 15 sessions of neurofeedback intervention. The control group received no intervention. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni and Tukey post hoc tests in SPSS version 25.
Results: The results indicated that for both variables of attention and concentration, the effects of time, group, and the time × group interaction were statistically significant (p < .05). In addition, the results of the Bonferroni test showed that the mean differences among the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up stages were significant for both variables (p < .05). Furthermore, the results of Tukey’s test revealed that neurofeedback was more effective than Captain’s Log in improving attention and concentration (p < .05).
Conclusion: These findings indicate that interventions based on cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation can play an effective role in improving students’ cognitive functions, particularly in the domains of attention and concentration. The superiority of neurofeedback may be attributed to its more direct impact on the regulation of brain activity and the enhancement of cognitive self-regulation processes. Overall, the application of these interventions, especially neurofeedback, may be considered an appropriate approach for improving the academic and cognitive performance of elementary school students.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/08/7 | Accepted: 2025/10/12 | Published: 2025/10/23
Received: 2025/08/7 | Accepted: 2025/10/12 | Published: 2025/10/23
References
1. ابراهیمی جوزانی، شادی؛ کوچک انتظار، رویا؛ سپامنصور، مژگان و قدسی، پروانه (1400). مقایسه اثربخشی کاپیتان لاگ و نوروفیدبک بر بازداری پاسخ و اندوزش حافظه فعال در دانش آموزان دختر پایه چهارم ابتدایی. فصلنامه علمی عصب روانشناسی، 1(24)، 131-142. https://doi.org/10.30473/clpsy.2021.59457.1605
2. سام نیا، زینب؛ لیوارجانی، شعله و حسن پاشایی، لیلا (1400). تاثیر آموزشی نرم افزار کاپیتان لاگ بر حافظه فعال، سرعت پردازش و انعطاف پذیری شناختی در کودکان اختلال نقص توجه-بیش فعالی. فصلنامه علمی عصب روانشناسی، 7(1)، 130-115.DOI:10.30473/clpsy.2021.58416.1598
3. رجبی، سوران؛ نریمانی، محمد و ابوالقاسمی، عباس (1394). بررسی تاثیر نوروفیدبک در افزایش عملکرد هوشی و توجه کودکان مبتلا به نارساخوانی. مجله دست آوردهای روانشناختی، 22(2)، 26-1. https://doi.org/10.22055/psy.2016.12306
4. رضایی، سجاد؛ حسینی، سیده الهه و زبردست، عذرا (1403). کاربرد برنامه رایانه ای آموزش شناختی Captains Log برای بهبود تغییر کوری و توانایی گزینش پاسخ در کودکان با اختلال کاستی توجه و بیش فعالی. فصلنامه روانشناسی شناختی، 12(2)، 31-48.http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3821-fa.html
5. محمودعلیلو مجید، حمیدی صمد، شیروانی امیر.(1390). مقایسه کارکردهای اجرایی و توجه پایدار در دانشجویان دارای علایم وسواسی- اجباری، اسکیزوتایپی بالا و علایم همپوش با گروه بهنجار. تحقیقات علوم رفتاری، 9(3). http://rbs.mui.ac.ir/article-1-204-fa.html
6. نظربلند، ندا؛ نوحهگری، الهام و صادقی فیروزآبادی، وحید. (1398). اثربخشی توانبخشی شناختی رایانهای (کاپیتانلاگ) بر حافظه فعال، توجه پایدار و عملکرد ریاضی کودکان دچار اختلال طیف اوتیسم. مجله روانشناسی کاربردی،13(2)، (50)،270-293. doi: 10.29252/apsy.13.2.271
7. نوده ئی، خدیجه؛ صرامی، غلامرضا و کرامتی، هادی (1395). رابطه کارکردهای اجرایی و ظرفیت حافظۀ کاری با عملکرد خواندن دانش آموزان: نقش سن، جنس و هوش. فصلنامه روانشناسی شناختی، 4(3)، 11-24.http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2631-fa.html
8. Akbari Gharalari, N., Fallahi, S., Nakhjiri, E., Hosseini, L., Pakkhou, S., Havaei, N., Khodakarimi, S., Shahabi, P., Jafarzadeh Gharehziaaddin, M., & Soltani Zangbar, H. (2025). How to improve cognitive flexibility: Evidence from noninvasive neuromodulation techniques. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 31(9), e70613. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.70613
9. Becker, S. P., Epstein, J. N., Burns, G. L., Mossing, K. W., Schmitt, A. P., Fershtman, C. E., ... & Tamm, L. (2022). Academic functioning in children with and without sluggish cognitive tempo. Journal of School Psychology, 95, 105-120.doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2022.10.001
10. Commodari, E., La Rosa, V. L., & Foti, F. (2025). Attention skills, learning and academic abilities in children and adolescents with genetic disorders: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1677418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1677418
11. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
12. Coltman, S. K., Cashaback, J. G. A., & Gribble, P. L. (2019). Both fast and slow learning processes contribute to savings following sensorimotor adaptation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 121(4), 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00794.2018
13. Ebrahimi Jozani, S., Kochak Entezar, R., Sepahmansour, M., & Ghodsi, P. (2021). Evaluation and comparison of neurofeedback and Capitan log on response inhibition and storage of working memory in female elementary students in 4th grade. Neuropsychology, 7(26), 131–142. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.30473/clpsy.2021.59457.1605
14. Kuznetsova, E., de Beus, R., Arnold, L. E., Rudakov, E., & Cowley, B. U. (2026). Learning in neurofeedback is heterogenous and does not guarantee ADHD symptom improvement. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-026-09774-w
15. Lai, Y. J., & Chang, K. M. (2020). Improvement of attention in elementary school students through fixation focus training activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4780. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134780
16. Lestari, H. A. S. A., Rinnanik, R., Ramadina, E., & Biduri, F. N. (2026). Analyzing Cognitive Development in Elementary-Aged Children and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning Strategies. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 11(3), 1.DOI: 10.17977/um011v11i32023p143-155
17. Lövdén, M., Fratiglioni, L., Glymour, M. M., Lindenberger, U., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2020). Education and cognitive functioning across the life span. Psychological science in the public interest, 21(1), 6-41.doi: 10.1177/1529100620920576
18. Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470214808416738
19. Mahmoudaliloo, M., Hamidi, S., & Shirvani, A. (2011). Comparison of executive functions and sustained attention in students with obsessive-compulsive symptoms, high schizotypal traits, and overlapping symptoms with a normal group. Behavioral Sciences Research, 9(3). (in persian). http://rbs.mui.ac.ir/article-1-204-fa.html
20. Marzbani, H., Marateb, H. R., & Mansourian, M. (2016). Neurofeedback: A comprehensive review on system design, methodology and clinical applications. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, 7(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.15412/J.BCN.03070208
21. Moein, N., Asadi Gandomani, R., & Amiri, M. (2018). The effect of neurofeedback on improving executive functions in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of Rehabilitation, 19(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.32598/rj.19.3.220
22. Nazarboland, N., Nohehgari, E., & Sadeghi Firouzabadi, V. (2019). The effectiveness of computerized cognitive rehabilitation (Captain’s Log) on working memory, sustained attention, and mathematical performance in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Psychology, 13(2), 270–293. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.29252/apsy.13.2.271
23. Noudei, K., Sarami, G. R., & Keramati, H. (2016). The relationship of executive functions and working memory capacity with students’ reading performance: The role of age, gender, and intelligence. Quarterly Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 11–24.(in persian). http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2631-fa.html
24. Pumaccahua, T.M., Wong, E.H., & Wiest, D.J. (2017). Effects of computerized cognitive training on working memory in a school setting. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(3): 88-104.https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/863
25. Rabiner, D. L., Carrig, M. M., & Dodge, K. A. (2016). Attention problems and academic achievement: Do persistent and earlier-emerging problems have more adverse long-term effects?. Journal of attention disorders, 20(11), 946-957. DOI: 10.1177/1087054713507974
26. Rajabi, S., Narimani, M., & Abolghasemi, A. (2015). Investigating the effect of neurofeedback on increasing intelligence performance and attention in children with dyslexia. Psychological Achievements, 22(2), 1–26. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/psy.2016.12306
27. Rezaei S, Hosseini S E, Zebardast A. (2024). Application of Captain's Log Computerized Cognitive Training Program for improvement of change blindness and response selection ability in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. CPJ; 12 (2) :27-44 (in persian). http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3821-en.html
28. Samnia, Z., Livarjani, S., & Hassan Pashaei, L. (2021). Educational effect of Captain Log software on working memory, processing speed and cognitive flexibility in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 7(26), 115–130. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.30473/clpsy.2021.58416.1598
29. Sharpe, B. T., & Tyndall, I. (2025). The sustained attention paradox: A critical commentary on the theoretical impossibility of perfect vigilance. Cognitive Science, 49(4), Article e70061. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.70061
30. Smit, D., Dapor, C., Koerts, J., Tucha, O. M., Huster, R. J., & Enriquez-Geppert, S. (2023). Long-term improvements in executive functions after frontal-midline theta neurofeedback in a (sub)clinical group. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, Article 1163380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1163380
31. van de Ven, R. M., Murre, J. M. J., Veltman, D. J., & Schmand, B. A. (2016). Computer-based cognitive training for executive functions after stroke: A systematic review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00150
32. Wong, E. H., Rosales, K. P., & Looney, L. (2023). Improving cognitive abilities in school-age children via computerized cognitive training: examining the effect of extended training duration. Brain sciences, 13(12), 1618.doi: 10.3390/brainsci13121618
33. Zhong, X., Yuan, X., Dai, Y., Zhang, X., & Jiang, C. (2025). Neurofeedback training for executive function in ADHD children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 28148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94242-4
34. Zhao, D., Wang, W., Xia, X., Ju, P., Shen, L., & Nan, W. (2025). Effects of frontal-midline theta neurofeedback with different training directions on goal-directed attentional control. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 50(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-024-09673-y
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)