How Ebbi proves itself

Why this page exists

The audit trail

Ebbi is a focus planner for adults with ADHD. Every core mechanic in the app (the plan, timed blocks, resets, the sound set, time projection and the no-shame rules) traces to published research, graded for evidence strength and cited openly. Where the evidence is thin, we say so. This page is the audit trail. The principles we design from are at the top. The eleven decisions and why each is defensible are in the middle. The full reference list is at the bottom: forty references, made up of thirty-seven peer-reviewed journal articles, one meta-analysis published as a book chapter and two books, covering every source the decisions cite and the background reading behind them. Our limitations and the questions we still cannot answer are there too. When we find a citation error we fix it publicly and keep a log.

Principles

What we build on

Five commitments that sit above every product decision below. Each is rooted in a source from the reference list at the bottom of the page.

01
Shame-free by default
In adults with ADHD, emotional dysregulation is much higher than in adults without it (a meta-analysis of 13 studies and 2,535 adults with and without ADHD), and low self-compassion helps explain poorer mental health (543 adults who reported an ADHD diagnosis). In the general population, people who procrastinate more tend to have less self-compassion and more stress. Ebbi never uses shame to motivate.
Beheshti 2020 (ref 33) + Beaton 2022 (ref 34) + Sirois 2014 (ref 8)
02
Time must be visible
A 2022 meta-analysis of 27 studies found that children and teens with ADHD judge time less accurately and less consistently. A running ring and a projected finish time keep time on screen instead of in your head.
Zheng 2022 (ref 7)
03
Friction at start, not at finish
In the general population, deciding in advance when and where you will act (an if-then plan) helps people get started on a goal. Ebbi has you choose your tasks and resets while you plan, so the next step is already decided when it arrives.
Gollwitzer 1999 (ref 3) + Gollwitzer and Sheeran 2006 (ref 2)
04
Evidence over opinion
Every reference on this page is graded (meta-analysis, RCT, empirical, review, theoretical). Grades are visible. Weak evidence is disclosed openly.
See evidence grades below
05
Correct in public
When a citation is wrong, we fix it here first, log what changed, and carry the fix into the next app update. The corrections log lives at the top of this page.
See corrections band above

Theme 1 of 4 · Decisions 1 to 3

Core loop and structure

How a session is shaped. The default arc through Plan, then Focus, then Review, plus the small rules that keep an in-progress session honest when life intervenes.

1. Plan, then focus, then review Review

Problem: We think long unbroken stretches of work wear focus down, and unplanned pauses leave people working without direction.
Literature: A 2025 scoping review on the Pomodoro technique found structured timed intervals beat self-paced break schedules on fatigue, distractibility, and motivation. In 87 students, Biwer (2023) found that pre-scheduled breaks brought less fatigue and distraction, and more concentration and motivation, than breaks the students timed themselves.19 20
Decision: Ebbi's core loop is Plan then Focus then Review. Tasks and resets are pre-sequenced before the session begins.
In the app: The Plan tab builds a schedule. The Focus tab runs it. The Review screen closes it.

2. Pre-chosen resets, not invented ones Meta-analysis

Problem: Without resets chosen in advance, every switch in the middle of a session adds a fresh decision about what to do next.
Literature: In Gollwitzer's implementation-intention research, a meta-analysis of 94 independent tests (more than 8,000 participants, none in ADHD samples) found that if-then planning had a medium-to-large effect (d = 0.65) on reaching goals. In boys with ADHD, Gawrilow found that an if-then plan brought inhibition (holding back an unwanted response) up to the level of peers without ADHD.2 3 4
Decision: Users pre-select their resets during planning, before fatigue. The Reset Bank is the reusable list of those choices.
In the app: Reset Bank lives in the Banks tab. Users tap a stored reset instead of inventing one mid-session.

3. Extend the current block, don't break the session Empirical

Problem: We think a rigid timer can cut into hyperfocus, and that forcing a session to end at the preset time can cost good deep work.
Literature: Hupfeld (2019) surveyed two samples of adults (251 and 372) and found that people with more ADHD symptoms report hyperfocus more often. No study we know of tests whether a fixed timer breaks hyperfocus; a one-tap extend is our design response.18
Decision: A one-tap +1 minute and a one-tap +5 minutes sit right on the timer ring, across from -1 and -5. Rapid-tappable. No confirmation. No friction.
In the app: Focus tab: +5 and +1 sit on the right side of the timer ring, -5 and -1 on the left. The action row below holds the sound picker, Back, Play/Pause, Skip and Schedule. On Android, Restart takes the place of Back.

Theme 2 of 4 · Decisions 4 to 5

Audio and attention

How sound is used as an attention intervention, why thirteen distinct soundscapes ship, and why silence carries the same first-class status as white noise.

4. Ambient noise as a targeted intervention Meta-analysis

Problem: Why background noise helps some people with ADHD is not settled. The leading proposed explanation, the Moderate Brain Arousal model, holds that ADHD brains run below their best level of arousal and that noise can lift weak neural signals past threshold (stochastic resonance). The model is debated; the benefit itself has been measured.
Literature: Soderlund 2007 showed white noise helped children with ADHD on memory tasks while hurting controls, and Soderlund 2010 found the same pattern in inattentive school children who had no ADHD diagnosis. A 2024 Nigg meta-analysis (13 studies, 12 of them white noise; g = 0.249 benefit in youth with ADHD or attention problems, g = -0.212 in comparison groups) pools both of those studies and finds the same pattern, so it confirms them rather than replicating them independently.5 28 29 30 31
Decision: Ebbi ships thirteen soundscapes and says how strong the evidence is behind each one. White noise has the strongest evidence for ADHD; for the others the evidence is weaker.
In the app: The session sound picker shows the name of each soundscape. Each soundscape has its own research page with the evidence behind it.

5. Silence is a soundscape Empirical

Problem: Not every ADHD user benefits from noise, so we think silence has to be a real choice, not a fallback.
Literature: Soderlund 2024 tested 43 children and teens with a clinical ADHD diagnosis. Noise did not help the group as a whole, but those with more inattentive traits tended to do better with it and those with more hyperactive-impulsive traits tended to do worse. Forcing sound on everyone would hurt a defined subgroup.32
Decision: Silence is one of the three soundscapes available without Pro. It is listed second, right after Lo-Fi (the fresh-install default), with the same row style as White Noise.
In the app: Session Sound sheet and Settings Sound picker both list Silence as a tappable row.

Theme 3 of 4 · Decisions 6 to 8

Time, cognition, and estimation

Three decisions that treat ADHD brains' relationship to time and working memory as design constraints, not user failures. Put time and plans outside your head, and show what is hard to track from the inside.

6. A visible countdown AND a projected finish Meta-analysis

Problem: Children and teens with ADHD judge time less accurately and less consistently than their peers (meta-analysis of 27 studies).
Literature: Zheng (2022) pooled 27 studies of 1,620 children and teens with ADHD and 1,249 without, and the gap in accuracy and consistency did not depend on the kind of timing task.7
Decision: Ebbi shows the remaining time in a ring AND the projected finish time as an absolute clock. Two redundant views because one of them fails a given user on a given day.
In the app: The Focus tab ring shows relative countdown. The "Free at 4:12 PM" chip shows absolute finish. Both update live during pauses and extends.

7. Banks instead of working memory Meta-analysis

Problem: Working-memory capacity is systematically lower in ADHD adults. Asking them to remember which tasks and resets to use is designing against the disability.
Literature: Risko (2016) is the foundational cognitive-offloading review. Morrison and Richmond (2020) found offloading beats relying on internal memory, especially at higher memory loads, and helps across the full range of memory ability. A 2026 meta-analysis confirms the performance benefit.14 15 16
Decision: The Task Bank and Reset Bank exist to offload remembered items to the app. Once stored, a task can be reused in any session.
In the app: The Banks tab holds the Task Bank and the Reset Bank. Plan pulls from them.

8. Show estimate error, don't judge it Review

Problem: People in general tend to misjudge how long tasks take and rarely see their own estimate accuracy measured. We think seeing it is the first step to correcting it.
Literature: People tend to underestimate how long future tasks will take, partly because they misremember how long past tasks took (Roy, Christenfeld and McKenzie 2005, a review). In three experiments, telling people how long a task had actually taken, for them or for other people, roughly halved their prediction errors (Roy, Mitten and Christenfeld 2008). Both papers concern the general population; this has not been tested in ADHD.35 36
Decision: On iPhone and, in the latest version, on Android, Ebbi records each task's planned time and the time it actually ran, and with Pro the Progress tab shows the pattern. Android sessions recorded before that update show planned times only.
In the app: The session-complete card shows a task count and minutes focused, never per-task times. Opening a past session in Progress lists each task's planned and actual minutes, on iPhone and, in the latest version, on Android; older Android sessions list planned minutes only.

Theme 4 of 4 · Decisions 9 to 11

Anti-shame and restoration

The three decisions that put Ebbi in opposition to most productivity apps. No streaks to protect. Curated rest, not "take a break." Two daily nudges, not dozens.

9. No punishment, ever Empirical

Problem: In the general population, people who procrastinate more tend to have less self-compassion and more stress.
Literature: Sirois (2014) ties self-compassion to lower procrastination.8
Decision: Ebbi has no streaks that can break, no scolding warnings, no shame copy. Ending a session early is never called a failure. Discard session is a separate, clearly labeled choice.
In the app: The end-session sheet lists "Keep going" first and "End and save progress" second. "Discard session" sits last, marked in red as the one destructive choice. Completion never lists per-task time arrows.

10. Break content matters more than break length Empirical

Problem: A break spent checking email is not restorative. Recovery depends on the activity, not just the duration.
Literature: In a two-week diary study of 71 call center sales staff in Korea, Kim (2018) found that relaxation, social, and cognitive micro-breaks (cognitive meaning reading or browsing for fun) went with more positive affect at work, which in turn went with higher daily sales, while snack and drink breaks did not; the link to sales held only for less engaged workers. Kaplan's Attention Restoration Theory adds that low-demand activities, like a walk or time outside, let directed attention recover.12 9 10
Decision: Resets are curated: a walk, a stretch, a glass of water, a pre-selected micro-task switch. Not "take a break and come back."
In the app: Reset Bank starters include "Walk around the block," "Step outside for air," "Stretch and drink water," "Tidy one surface," "Switch the laundry," "Look out a window," and "Listen to one song, eyes off screen."

11. Two nudges, not dozens Theoretical

Problem: Every notification pulls attention away from something else, and an app that sends too many risks being tuned out entirely.
Literature: Leroy (2009) found that after people switch tasks, their attention lingers on the unfinished one and their next task suffers, a cost she called attention residue. Her two experiments did not study ADHD. Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, which are design guidance rather than research, warn that repeated notifications can lead people to turn off all of an app's notifications. No study we know of has tested how many notifications work best for people with ADHD.37
Decision: A morning nudge and an evening review. Those are the only daily defaults. If you schedule a session, Ebbi can also remind you before it starts. Pro adds up to five user-authored custom reminders. No engagement pings. No streak reminders.
In the app: Settings Notifications shows the two defaults. Custom Reminders is Pro-only and requires explicit user authorship per reminder.

How we weigh evidence

Evidence grades

Every reference carries one of five grades. We show the grade so readers can judge claims on strength, not number of citations.

Meta-analysis

Pooled evidence across many studies. Strongest.

RCT

Randomized controlled trial. Strong causal.

Empirical

Single peer-reviewed study. Solid.

Review

Literature review or systematic review. Contextual.

Theoretical

Framework or model paper. Directional.

What we don't know yet

Open questions

The honest list. Where the evidence is thin, where generalization is a leap, what we have not yet measured. We update this as we learn.

Generalization. Most noise-and-ADHD studies were run with children. Adults with ADHD have different arousal baselines and different environments. We grade adult-specific evidence higher when it exists.
Dosage. The best task-block length for ADHD adults is not settled; no study has identified one. A new task defaults to fifteen minutes, and you can change that default, the length of any task, and how many blocks it splits into.
Long-term outcomes. Most cited studies measure single-session effects. We do not yet have evidence for how daily Ebbi use changes outcomes over months.
Comorbidity. ADHD rarely travels alone. Most sources do not stratify by co-occurring conditions. Generalizing to a user who also has anxiety or depression is an inference, not a finding.
Self-selection. People who download a focus planner are not a representative sample of ADHD adults. Any user-data we collect will be biased by who chose to show up.

If you study this area and want to collaborate, email support@ebbi.app.

References

The reference list

Forty references: thirty-seven peer-reviewed journal articles, one meta-analysis published as a book chapter, and two books. Numbers match the inline superscripts. Entries no decision cites directly are background reading for the themes and the soundscape grades. Tap a citation in a decision to jump here.

Show all 40 references

Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1336–1346. DOI Meta
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. DOI Meta
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. DOI Review
Gawrilow, C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Implementation intentions facilitate response inhibition in children with ADHD. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(2), 261–280. DOI Empirical
Soderlund, G., Sikstrom, S., & Smart, A. (2007). Listen to the noise. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), 840–847. DOI Empirical
Rausch, V. H., Bauch, E. M., & Bunzeck, N. (2014). White noise improves learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(7), 1469–1480. DOI Empirical
Zheng, Q., Wang, X., Chiu, K. Y., & Shum, K. K. (2022). Time perception deficits in children and adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(2), 267–281. DOI Meta
Sirois, F. M. (2014). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion. Self and Identity, 13(2), 128–145. DOI Empirical
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Theoretical
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. DOI Theoretical
Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 394–409. DOI Review
Kim, S., Park, Y., & Headrick, L. (2018). Daily micro-breaks and job performance: General work engagement as a cross-level moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 772–786. DOI Empirical
Albulescu, P., Macsinga, I., Rusu, A., Sulea, C., Bodnaru, A., & Tulbure, B. T. (2022). "Give me a break!" A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of micro-breaks for increasing well-being and performance. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272460. DOI Meta
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. DOI Review
Morrison, A. B., & Richmond, L. L. (2020). Offloading items from memory: Individual differences in cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 1. DOI Empirical
Burnett, L. K., & Richmond, L. L. (2026). Meta-analytic investigations of the effect of cognitive offloading on memory-based task performance and interindividual variability. Memory & Cognition, 54(1), 144–168. DOI Meta
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2003). The dual pathway model of AD/HD. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(7), 593–604. DOI Theoretical
Hupfeld, K. E., Abagis, T. R., & Shah, P. (2019). Living "in the zone": Hyperfocus in adult ADHD. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 11(2), 191–208. DOI Empirical
Ogut, E. (2025). Assessing the efficacy of the Pomodoro technique in enhancing anatomy lesson retention during study sessions: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 1440. DOI Review
Biwer, F., Wiradhany, W., oude Egbrink, M. G. A., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2023). Understanding effort regulation: Comparing "Pomodoro" breaks and self-regulated breaks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(S2), 353–367. DOI Empirical
Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228. DOI Empirical
Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036–1046. DOI Empirical
Gould van Praag, C. D., et al. (2017). Mind-wandering and alterations to default mode network connectivity. Scientific Reports, 7, 45273. DOI Empirical
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. DOI Empirical
Andrade, J. (2010). What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 100–106. DOI Empirical
Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain's default network. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 1–38. DOI Review
Sarkamo, T., et al. (2008). Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after stroke. Brain, 131(3), 866–876. DOI Empirical
Nigg, J. T., Bruton, A., Kozlowski, M. B., Johnstone, J. M., & Karalunas, S. L. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis: Do white noise or pink noise help with task performance in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or with elevated attention problems? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 63(8), 778–788. DOI Meta
Soderlund, G. B. W., Sikstrom, S., Loftesnes, J. M., & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. (2010). The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive school children. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6, 55. DOI Empirical
Helps, S. K., Bamford, S., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., & Soderlund, G. B. W. (2014). Different effects of adding white noise on cognitive performance of sub-, normal and super-attentive school children. PLoS One, 9(11), e112768. DOI Empirical
Baijot, S., et al. (2016). Neuropsychological and neurophysiological benefits from white noise in children with and without ADHD. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 12, 11. DOI Empirical
Soderlund, G. B. W., Hadjikhani, N., Thorsson, M., E-Said, S., Claesdotter-Knutsson, E., Gustafsson, P., & Johnels, J. A. (2024). Sensory white noise in clinical ADHD: Who benefits from noise, and who performs worse? Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, 12(1), 92–99. DOI Empirical
Beheshti, A., Chavanon, M. L., & Christiansen, H. (2020). Emotion dysregulation in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 20, 120. DOI Meta
Beaton, D. M., Sirois, F. M., & Milne, E. (2022). The role of self-compassion in the mental health of adults with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78(12), 2497–2512. DOI Empirical
Roy, M. M., Christenfeld, N. J. S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2005). Underestimating the duration of future events: Memory incorrectly used or memory bias? Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 738–756. DOI Review
Roy, M. M., Mitten, S. T., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2008). Correcting memory improves accuracy of predicted task duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(3), 266–275. DOI Empirical
Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181. DOI Empirical
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. DOI Empirical
Volkow, N. D., et al. (2011). Motivation deficit in ADHD is associated with dysfunction of the dopamine reward pathway. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(11), 1147–1154. DOI Empirical
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive Functions: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They Evolved. Guilford Press. Theoretical

Ebbi is not a medical device and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any condition. Consult a healthcare provider for medical advice.