DISCUSSION
Epstein, inattention behavior, QET‐based, ADHD
EPSTEIN, RTA
In comparison with the regular population of the same age, the QET and CON groups on average had a delayed response to the visual stimulus in the RTA test, impaired control of response inhibition in the GNG task, and a below average scope of visuospatial WM in the Corsi test. These findings supported the association of inattention behavior with underlying cognitive processes in the participants, in a line of diagnostic features of ADHD outlined by DSM‐5 (APA, This study demonstrated that QET in 9–12‐year‐old children with ADHD can bring about an improvement of inhibition control, but not of visuospatial WM. The individuals in the QET group demonstrated a shortening of MRT, a reduction of variability of RT, and a reduction of omission errors in the GNG task after the end of the training. These metrics of GNG inhibition are considered indexes of sustained attention or controlled‐focused attention that are commonly associated with attention and vigilance deficits (Sjöwall et al., However, at the same time, QET did not lead to an improvement of intrinsic (tonic) alertness assessed in the simple RTA task. RT measured in this type of the reaction task indicates rather difficulties in basic information processing rather than sustained attention (Moreno‐García et al., The observed reduction of omission errors in the QET group may have been contributed to the more effective differentiation of go‐stimuli from no‐go stimuli, and the more rapid generation of motor responses. An omission error was identified when an individual failed to respond to a go‐stimulus within 500 ms, similarly as in the GNG tasks used on children with ADHD in previous studies (e.g., Epstein et al., In addition to the above‐discussed changes of the metrics of GNG inhibition, at the same time, there was a reduction of commission errors in the QET group. Commission error is used as the index of inhibitory control (Verbruggen & Logan, QET‐based intervention did not lead to an improvement of WM. Our assumption of the effect of training on WM was based on the embedded‐process model of WM (Cowan, The study was first investigation focused on the potential effect of the QET intervention on cognitive functions in children in ADHD. Therefore, we took this investigation as the pilot study to reveal whether the intervention based on the QET could possibly affect two selected cognitive functions in children. To implement this training into clinical practice, next research is needed to evaluate potential changes of clinical symptoms of ADHD. Another potential limitation for the generalization of the results of the study could be the mixed sample of children with ADHD‐I and ADHD‐C. Children with 