Overall, this is an interesting study and has the potential to shed more light on the effect of the quiet eye training-based intervention for motor inhibition and working memory in children with ADHD. The statistical analysis is appropriate and the results are well presented but some changes can be considered. The sample size is low. The introduction and discussion are suitable but some issues should be discussed. In my opinion, there are some major and minor points that should be considered.

Major points:
1. In the introduction section, there is a lack of a neuropsychological theoretical model of ADHD. I suggest considering embedding the hypothesis on the basis of the model by Barkley et al. (2001). Moreover, the authors should mention in the introduction section a great work by Diamond (2013) about executive functions. I agree that working memory and inhibition are basic aspects of executive functions but it should be supported on the theoretical model of executive functions. In addition, I propose to discuss results of this study in light of both theoretical models by Barkley (2001) and Diamond (2013).
Suggested references:
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Barkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., & Metevia, L. (2001). Executive functioning, temporal discounting, and sense of time in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 541-556.
2. How many children were excluded from the study based on exclusion criteria? If none, I suggest modifying the text in study design and participants section and just describing exclusion criteria. Moreover, there is no inclusion criteria for the study.
3. The sample size was not calculated (for example using G*Power). Thus, the authors might provide sensitivity analysis and add this information to methods section.
4. In the statistical analysis section, authors should write about tests that they used to compare two groups in age (e.g., Student's-t test or another) and categorical variables (e.g., chi-squared test for cross table).
5. I strongly recommend considering using in statistical analysis the Reliable Change Index (see Duff, 2012) to assess reliable change and practice effect.
Suggested reference:
Duff, K. (2012). Evidence-based indicators of neuropsychological change in the individual patient: relevant concepts and methods. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27, 248-261.
6. I strongly suggest presenting results in the Figures as the box or violin plots instead Table 2.
7. In my opinion, there are much more limitations of this study. First of all, there is no active control group that conducted similar placebo training. Second, there is no control group of healthy children. Third, there is no follow-up comparison. Fourth, there is no information about the IQ of the children and any methods to measure it (e.g., Wechsler Scale, Simon-Binet Scale, or other tool). Fifth, the group size is very low. Finally, tasks used in this study are characterized by low "ecological validity". Please discuss the excellent work by Chaytor & Schmitter-Edgecombe (2003).
Suggested reference:
Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13, 181-197.
8. The authors should add propositions for clinical practice and future research directions.

Minor points:
- The text should be checked for mistakes (e.g., in Table 3 "p" should be written in lowercase).
- I suggest considering changing the name of groups, e.g., active group and passive group. In my opinion, children who did not train are not a control group. It is a compared group.
- Abstract: should be written about forty-eight children, not thirty-eight.
- I suggest adding more key words e.g., working memory, executive functions, and ADHD