I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century when televisions came about. It really makes me doubt the entire premise as screens have not changed since then. It just seems like another unfounded moral panic like when people blamed books, newspapers, or radio for youth misbehavior. Every generation has it's own. It's weird that we've gone back to the 1940s for the 2020s moral panic.
Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope does about how my day will go. It's amazing this passed JAMA's review to be published.
What? They've changed massively. The displays are different sizes, they're made of different materials, they're more portable, they're more interactive, the colors are brighter, the resolution is better. Our current generation of screens are ubiquitous in a way that TV was not, and they are qualitatively different. Surely the effect on our brains could be different. Not saying that this particular study is great but I don't understand how anyone can dismiss this line of thinking as nothing more than the same moral panic Socrates once had about books, or whatever. Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?
Moreover parents (the vast majority) use these screen as babysitters —TV did some of that some of the time, but mostly not. But with mobile devices they are ubiquitous in cars, restaurants, airplanes and the home.
It’s a long stretch to say they are equivalent for sure.
If nothing else they deserve to be studied for effects rather than dismiss it as “yet another moral panick”
Near the end of the article, or my attention span, they mention that they urgently need to contrast the actual screen time from societal factors that influence the parents to use the screen as babysitter.
I think there are a bunch of studies about the amount of babble conversation, "I spy" or other awareness games, etc. from primary caregiver is paramount and the moms [etc.] out on walks generally have their baby just zoning out while they surf fast fashion with one hand on the stroller.
An anecdotal comment on screens: When I got my first flat-screen HD TV, and watched actual HD content on it, I had a visceral reaction to the higher resolution. I could remember seeing the lines/pores on people's faces, and it was honestly jarring. I almost plugged my old tube TV back in.
I've done some work with the Amish, and the mind-blown can't-look-away effect of a low quality digital picture frame on fully grown adults raised some red flags for me. Brains are very good at adapting to their surroundings. I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of a moral panic, but something about screens is very unnatural.
>Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?
I have never owned a smart phone or tablet. I use a dumb phone (Nokia 6030) and desktop (or laptop) computers. Smartphones and tablets are terrible computers, not because they have magic screen powers to influence your brain but because they have limited volume for heat dissipation/energy storage, limited network capability due to radio power constraints and random round trip time, terrible IO, locked down software, and generally are ankle bracelet like tracking devices with no way to remove the battery.
So you have little experience with what you're talking about, but it doesn't stop you from claiming things about their effects with a high degree of confidence?
It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one. The interactivity, the high quality and brightly colored displays, the touch feedback and notifications...these devices are like brain candy. They're extremely pleasurable to use and if you get used to using them often it's very hard to pull yourself away from them.
What you're describing is a dopamine rush. I get the same thing when I watch videos of games I was addicted to once. It's not the device itself that causes it.
As a counter-experience: I'm over thirty and only got a modern smartphone a few years ago. The thing is awful. The touch interface is finicky, even after long use. Holding the thing for an extended amount of time is uncomfortable, even after long use. UI design seems universally terrible. All the apps I tried were disorganized and didn't quite serve the purpose I had expected, but they did always give me way too many unlabeled buttons and random pop-ups to tap, and asked for my money/attention every few minutes. The Android OS is obscurantic and loves to give you completely meaningless things to tap: "Tap here to optimize your device", like fucking what? I downloaded a game that appealed to me with loot boxes and sexy characters, but after an initial "wow, phone hardware has come a long way," the novelty wore off very quickly. Frankly, I now loathe the thing. The amount of frustration I've had with it, and the idea that it will just become ever more mandatory as every asshole company and government office loves the idea of shoving you through exactly, for their purposes, calibrated UI that you can't control or argue with -- it outweighs any positive experience I've had from it by a large factor. I don't feel any magic feel-good screen powers, only irritation.
Well, yeah, but how is it not the device itself that causes it? I'm addicted to the dopamine rush from interacting with the device. The cause is both the addiction in my brain and the addictive properties of the device that gave rise to it in the first place.
I used a flip phone for a year after having had a smartphone for a decade and I felt similarly to you when I first went back to my smartphone. It was overstimulating and I hated it. I have always used an iPhone, though, and I find that they're a significantly better user experience than Android so I didn't notice the UX problems you described. More like the entire thing was just TOO MUCH COMING AT ME ALL THE TIME AHHHHHH! After a few months I was back to being addicted and it all felt normal again. I miss my flip phone a lot but life without a smartphone was just too annoying.
Basically, I despise my smartphone, but I'm still addicted to it. I use it even when I don't want to and when it prevents me from doing other things I'd rather be doing. I try to stop and eventually I always give in. It's a legitimate behavioral addiction and I believe the problem is both the design of specific apps and properties inherent to the device itself.
> Well, yeah, but how is it not the device itself that causes it? I'm addicted to the dopamine rush from interacting with the device.
You wouldn't blame trees or paper if you were addicted to some books. And I bet there would also be a set of books that you just couldn't stomach reading, due to how uninteresting to you they were (but were liked by others).
Are the trees and paper the problem? Is it the shape/format of a typical book? Or is it just certain kinds of books that you get addicted too? What about people who also like the type of books that you are addicted to, but they aren't addicted to them like you are? That sounds like a book type+personal problem to me, not a trees and paper problem.
I think that certain aspects of the design of some electronic devices, particularly phones and tablets, are a huge part of the reason why they're so addictive. I'm specifically thinking about the screen resolution, brightly colored displays, and interactivity. How many people have you ever met who feel they have an addictive relationship to their kindle? I think if phones were grayscale e-ink displays with limited interactivity and no ability to play videos they would be much less addictive. When I turn my phone to grayscale it's immediately much less compelling.
If someone developed a new form of paper and suddenly millions of people were hooked on books published on that particular paper — wildly different books and only books printed on that kind of paper — it would make sense to conclude that there might be something about the new form of paper that's contributing to the problem. I'm sure I'm not the only one who found social media less compelling when I could only access it on a desktop computer. In my opinion the design of smartphones and tablets is not something we can just ignore when thinking about how and why they might be addictive. The devices themselves are brain candy just like the apps that run on them.
It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one.
Also anecdotally, my (infant) son is absolutely mesmerized by the sight of a phone screen. I don't let him see it generally, but if he casually spots a screen, it's like it's the only thing in the world.
That's so freaky to think about! I don't have kids but I've noticed a lot of the same things in myself. If I turn the display grayscale it's like it instantly loses 80% of its allure, which has me convinced that the bright colors are a huge part of why these devices are so mesmerizing to our lizard brains. I'd imagine that that has an extra strong pull for little kids who are already drawn to bright colors!
It was exactly like this for me as a kid in the 80s. Any time there was a screen it would grab my attention.
Of course we are talking about tube TV, something others in this thread are dismissing as not the same thing as smartphones.
I think the real reason is because it actually was the most interesting thing in the doctors waiting room. Does anyone really expect a dog-eared puzzle missing 40% of its pieces to hold a kids attention better than sesame street?
> Objective executive function assessments were administered using the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, second edition (NEPSY-II)
...whereas there are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes. Any specific criticisms besides the generic "moral panic" that gets posted on every article like this?
There was certainly worry about this earlier, though I don't know if there was any research done. My parents limited screen time when I was growing up (born 1985).
I do think there's been a substantial change in child-targeted media over the years. In the days of broadcast only tv, you couldn't turn the tv on at any time of day and expect to find children's programming. The advent of cable and home video players changed that, but not everybody had cable and not everybody chose to buy kids show recordings. Parents could make those decisions occaisionally and then be stuck with them, rather than having to fight a continuous battle of self-control.
Other big changes occurred with the rise of children's programming on youtube and the invention of smartphones. Basically in less than 100 years we've gone from no childrens screen media exising at all to an unlimited quantity available for free in every adult's pocket 24 hours a day.
Cultural attitudes and norms have changed greatly. There would generally be one television in the house and deciding which station to watch was often not an individual decision. People would also think there was something wrong with you if you spent too much time watching television.
Even into the late '90s, I recall people being disgusted and scandalized at rumors that so-and-so spends all day playing computer games. Now that everyone has their own personalized screen wherever they go, attitudes are somewhat different.
> I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century
I wonder why I was required to sit 1.5 meters away from the screen a generation after TV entered the home. Do modern kids sit this far away from tablets?
This paper is talking about screen use by infants - within the first year of life. Screen interaction can not be the major problem here, it's much more likely to be a lack of interaction with other humans. That's key to infant development, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lack of stimulus from carers would lead to issues later.
I'm not sure why it would be true that screen time is not a problem for a <1yr old. At about 6-9 months (maybe before) they are able to interact with the screen, and they interact much more with it if it has bright colors and responds to their touch. We would occasionally allow our eldest to use the phone around this age and she would become despondent if it was taken away. So we decided never to do that again.
Of course, a lack of interaction with humans could be a factor too but in our case we were literally playing with it alongside her and she would still get upset if it was taken away.
Not saying that it wouldn't be an issue at older ages as well, since for millenia children learned by watching the other people around them and learning from them, not from screens. That's my essential point - that's utterly essential for infants, even more at that age than later. Not that suddenly it becomes ok!
But if we want to keep the discussion on topic, we should talk about the age group being studied. Beyond that, we want to have a different study.
(edit, grammar because it's really too early in the morning for writing)
I think this might be something to it. I’ve noticed parallels between the stereotypical “kid glued to their phone” and “elderly person glued to slot machine at the casino”. Both of those are more interactive that TV.
They compared children starting at 12-18 months and ending at 9 years of age. This study would have been unreasonable as far as I understand it until screens got small enough to put in a crib or only include parents who hold their child in their lap while watching television or have a television adjacent to a crib.
It seems like they collected 5 screen time data points[0] but only present analysis of the first, collected at 12 months of age.
Did I just miss the other analyses?
Assuming I didn't, is it too cynical of me to infer that they ran the numbers for the other data points but found no relationship? Suggesting that screen use after age 20 months or so is substanitially less harmful?
[0] Quoting from the paper: "When their child was aged 12 months, parents were asked to report the amount of time on average that the child spent on screens ... . Parents were asked the same question on their child’s screen time at 5 time points between ages 12 months and 54 months."
I also didn't see anything about the type of programming consumed. I would think this would play a big role in things like attention.
A lot of the programming for kids is extremely low value - nothing of educational value, poor dialog, poor social skills/manners or violence, etc. There are even problems with the pacing a lot of times where it seems like the show is so fast compared to real life. No wonder you can't pay attention in a slow paced classroom when you're conditioned to have a 10 second attention span. I can even see some of this with my wife. She can't stand any sort of slow burn or intellectual movies, documentaries, etc. She just can't focus for that long if it's not fast paced. You can even see the general difference in pace from older movies or TV shows (like black and white old) and today.
Not at all cynical. Well, it's cynical but warranted. That's absolutely what they would have done. And because negative results don't get published in important journals, they wrote the paper emphasizing the positive result they did find.
They could have the causality reversed here. In that children with cognitive impairment are put in front of screens more often. As a parent, I can say that there a few things that can give you a break better than letting the kid play on a screen.
I'm completely out of the water, but one thing that I'm not seeing is control for ADHD which is highly heritable (depending on study there are various numbers ranging between 60-90%).
I wouldn't be surprised that ADHD parents would give their ADHD children access to screen earlier (as screens are hypnotic and thus have some calming effect, so, eh, life's experience?).
I'd probably change HN title: study says it's associated, but title suggest there's causation.
I sort of thought so. The screen acts as an external cognitive attention hold and thus you do not need to as much manage your own. You can externalize your attention via screens, just like we can externalize memory to our computers, etc.
Having a 4 month old sitting next to me as I write this, I think the prevailing opinion among my more woke friends with kids is, "screens are bad." As I read this, it seems to come to a correlative conclusion that screen time before 12 months causes executive function impairment as the time increases from 1 hour to 4 hours. Being a lay consumer of scientific material, I'm curious to understand if I'm reading this correctly.
And man. Screens. Addiction and disability were never the goal. :(
This is why there need to be better apps, games, with an enriching, artistic, educational or human-interactive component. We can never fight the flashy colors, but we could have an artistic renaissance if everyone grew up using digital art and musical collab/composition apps, global polyrythmic percussion, multilingual etc games.
One of my mom's credentials is a degree in early childhood development.
She and her peers from that life were pretty set (since the mid-70's) that putting children younger than 12 or so in front of 'screen media' had negative affects on social and cognitive development.
The rationale, as far as I understood it, is that young kids are voracious learners and screen media at it's best is a shallow and hyper focused projection of the day-to-day reality experienced by humans.
Thus, any time spent on screen media equates to lost training time/data which is always a negative if you are trying to build a general purpose human being.
Books which required effort to comprehend were fine, but interaction with peers, older humans and the outside world was preferable to all else.
EEG readings to prove things about executive function may suck, but the conclusion still seems somewhat intuitive.
- screen time was reported by parents at 12 months
- television was the only screen time experienced by the vast majority of subjects (they explain that this was around 2010, before handheld devices were ubiquitous)
- they found that at 9 years old, the children who had had more screen time at 12 months had worse attention and executive functioning at 9 years
- EEG correlates at 18 months explained some of those differences at 9 years
- this is in Singapore btw
What blew me away was that in this cohort, the average (average!) reported TV time for the 12-month-olds time was 2 hours a day!
I was surprised at the 2 hour number too, but then I remembered that there are a ton of stay at home moms or parents on parental leave who have the tv on all day for background noise. Being home alone all day can be isolating, and for some people the ‘company’ of a tv breaks up that isolation.
How significant of is the impairment of executive function here in the tests they gave? It was hard to find/read the data on my phone. E.g were some groups scoring 5% lower than control? 10%?
Discussion section: "Screen time likely represents a measurable contextual characteristic of a family or a proxy for the quality of parent-child interaction."
As long as it's correlations and there's no biochemical pathway it's little more than social sciences.
I have to wonder if they don't have the correlation reversed, ie, parents who park their kids in front of screens at a younger age (because of disinterest) read less to them and provide a less stimulating and engaging environment for their children.
Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope does about how my day will go. It's amazing this passed JAMA's review to be published.