How Ebbi proves itself

Why this page exists

The audit trail

Ebbi is a focus planner for adults with ADHD. Every feature in the app is backed by published research, graded for evidence strength, and cited openly. 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 thirty-one peer-reviewed sources that justify those decisions are at the bottom. 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
Self-compassion predicts lower procrastination; negative self-judgment predicts more.
Sirois 2014 (ref 8)
02
Time must be visible
ADHD brains underestimate duration. A running ring and projected finish time are interventions, not decoration.
Zheng 2022 (ref 7)
03
Friction at start, not at finish
If-then planning and pre-chosen resets reduce the activation cost of beginning, where ADHD executive function is weakest.
Gollwitzer 1999 + Gawrilow 2008 (refs 3, 4)
04
Evidence over opinion
Every citation 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 update the app and the site, and we log what changed. 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 Scoping review

Problem: Uninterrupted work degrades sustained attention. Unplanned pauses leave people working without direction.
Literature: A 2025 scoping review on the Pomodoro technique found structured timed work outperformed uninterrupted work on sustained attention. Biwer (2023) showed pre-scheduled breaks beat self-regulated ones on both mood and efficiency.19 20 2
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: ADHD executive function is weakest at the moment of initiation. Deciding what to do next in the middle of a session is exactly when initiation fails.
Literature: Gollwitzer's implementation-intention research shows if-then planning produces a medium-to-large effect on goal attainment (d = 0.65 across 94 studies). Gawrilow showed the effect is larger in ADHD children than in controls.2 3 4 14
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: Hyperfocus states can be disrupted by rigid time-based interruptions. Forcing a session to end at the preset time penalizes deep work.
Literature: Hupfeld (2019) surveyed adult ADHD users on hyperfocus and found that rigid timers work against focus at least as often as they help it.18
Decision: A one-tap +1 minute and a one-tap +5 minutes are on the action row. Rapid-tappable. No confirmation. No friction.
In the app: Focus tab action row: Restart, Skip, Play/Pause, +1 min, +5 min.

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: ADHD brains are under-aroused in the Moderate Brain Arousal model. Ambient noise increases arousal via stochastic resonance, boosting weak neural signals past threshold.
Literature: Soderlund 2007 and 2010 showed white noise helped ADHD children on cognitive tasks while hurting controls. A 2024 Nigg meta-analysis (13 studies, g = 0.249 ADHD benefit, g = -0.212 control harm) replicates the asymmetry.5 28 29 30 31
Decision: Ebbi ships thirteen soundscapes graded by evidence strength, not by aesthetic preference. White noise carries the strongest grade; others are transparently weaker.
In the app: The session sound picker shows the name of each soundscape. The Research page cites the grade.

5. Silence is a soundscape Empirical

Problem: Not every ADHD user benefits from noise. The MBA model predicts a subset performs better in silence, especially the hyperactive-impulsive subtype.
Literature: Soderlund 2024 found children with elevated hyperactivity/impulsivity performed worse with noise while high-inattention users benefited. Forcing sound on everyone would hurt a defined subgroup.28
Decision: Silence is the thirteenth soundscape. The fresh-install default is Lo-Fi, but Silence is a first-class option with the same UI weight 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. Externalize what the brain cannot hold; expose what it cannot self-monitor.

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

Problem: Time perception deficits in ADHD are confirmed across duration estimation, reproduction, and discrimination (meta-analysis of 27 studies).
Literature: Zheng (2022) establishes the deficit. Progress rings are the standard intervention in research apps that target time blindness.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 Review

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. Rondeel (2021) shows lower-WM individuals benefit more from offloading.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 Meta-analysis

Problem: Metacognition about time is weak in ADHD. People don't know their own estimate accuracy until they see it measured.
Literature: Metacognitive feedback research shows exposure to the gap between estimate and actual improves calibration over time without shaming the estimator.7
Decision: Every task stores planned vs. actual time. The Progress tab surfaces the pattern. The completion screen shows it without arrows or punishment.
In the app: Session-complete card reads "N tasks, M min focused." Per-task deltas are visible in Progress for the curious; not in the face for the exhausted.

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: Shame language predicts procrastination and avoidance. ADHD users specifically report dropping apps that punish missed sessions or break streaks.
Literature: Sirois (2014) ties self-compassion to lower procrastination. Clinical ADHD literature warns that shame-based gamification reinforces the exact avoidance loop it claims to fix.8
Decision: Ebbi has no streaks that can break, no red warnings, no shame copy. Ending a session early banks completed items instead of discarding them. Nothing is ever lost.
In the app: The end-session sheet makes "Keep going" the loudest option and "End and save progress" the affirmative alternative. "Discard" is a quiet link. 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: Kim (2022) showed micro-break activity type significantly predicted recovery outcomes. Kaplan's Attention Restoration Theory explains why nature and soft-fascination activities outperform social or cognitive ones.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 presets include Stretch, Hydrate, Step away, Switch a small task, Doodle, and Music with eyes closed.

11. Two nudges, not dozens Theoretical

Problem: Notification fatigue is particularly costly for ADHD users. Each ignored nudge teaches the brain to tune the app out entirely.
Literature: Apple HIG on notifications, Microsoft's Work Trend research on attention residue, and clinical ADHD coach literature converge: fewer, more meaningful nudges outperform many generic ones.
Decision: A morning nudge and an evening review. That's it for the defaults. 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 optimal task-block duration for ADHD adults is not settled. Twenty minutes is our default because it sits inside the window most studies cluster around, but individual variance is large.
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 [email protected].

References

Thirty-one peer-reviewed sources

Every reference cited in the decisions above. Numbers match the inline superscripts. Tap a citation in a decision to jump here.

Show all 31 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 Empirical
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. Sustainability, 6(9), 5541–5564. DOI Review
Kim, S., Park, Y., & Headrick, L. (2022). Daily micro-break activities and next-task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1409–1424. DOI Empirical
Zhu, Z., Chen, C., Yang, Y., Chen, J., & Guo, L. (2024). The effect of structured micro-breaks on concentration performance. Discover Sustainability, 5, 74. DOI Empirical
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. DOI Review
Rondeel, E., van der Linden, D., & Bijleveld, E. (2021). Individual differences in cognitive offloading. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 662862. Empirical
Cognitive offloading meta-analysis (2025). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Springer. 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., Senol, D., Kadioglu, B., & Candan, B. (2025). The effect of the Pomodoro technique on academic achievement: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 25, 130. DOI Review
Biwer, F., de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2023). When is an interruption a rest? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 729–742. 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 and pink noise help with attention in ADHD? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 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