Slashdot Mirror
Screen Time Changes Structure of Kids' Brains, NIH Study Shows (bloombergquint.com)
schwit1 shared this article from Bloomberg:
Brain scans of adolescents who are heavy users of smartphones, tablets and video games look different from those of less active screen users, preliminary results from an ongoing study funded by the National Institutes of Health show, according to a report on Sunday by "60 Minutes." That's the finding of the first batch of scans of 4,500 nine- to 10-year-olds. Scientists will follow those children and thousands more for a decade to see how childhood experiences, including the use of digital devices, affect their brains, emotional development and mental health.
In the first round of testing, the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world.... Early results from the $300 million study, called Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD), have determined that children who spend more than two hours of daily screen time score lower on thinking and language tests. A major data release is scheduled for early 2019.
The study's director cautions that "It won't be until we follow them over time that we will see if there are outcomes that are associated with the differences that we're seeing in this single snapshot."
The study will ultimately follow over 11,000 nine- to 10-year-olds for a decade.
In the first round of testing, the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world.... Early results from the $300 million study, called Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD), have determined that children who spend more than two hours of daily screen time score lower on thinking and language tests. A major data release is scheduled for early 2019.
The study's director cautions that "It won't be until we follow them over time that we will see if there are outcomes that are associated with the differences that we're seeing in this single snapshot."
The study will ultimately follow over 11,000 nine- to 10-year-olds for a decade.
But found nothing
Everything "changes the structure of our brains", or learning would not work.
How do they know the changes are detrimental? I think they are learning how better to handle a larger flow of information.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Next topic
The entire dataset (~50TB) is open to search and download right now. There will be bi-yearly releases of both MR and psychological testing, a great starter set for those willing to have their hand at Big Data analysis.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yours is a reasonable conjecture, and I'd tend to agree on intuition alone. Is there proof to back it up?
What if staring at a glowing screen is the key and it doesn't matter what you stare at all day? Perhaps one day the data will support switching kids to e-paper only devices.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
These studies usually require a control group that represents those who do not have the distinguishing features of those being studied. In this case, young people who aren't exposed to screen time. Where will these people be found? In the Amazon jungles? And how can they objectively used as a control group? If there is a significant difference in the economic / geographical / ethnic / etc status of the control group, the study can't be valid.
...omphaloskepsis often...
That makes even less sense. Do you think LEDs poison the brain in yet unknown ways and reflective displays don't? Then maybe we should also remove all electric lighting and send the kids to bed at sundown?
LOL I'm on the internets
children who spend more than two hours of daily screen time score lower on thinking and language tests
That doesn't say much to me. Were the tests on paper? What if tests on been done on devices instead?
I strongly distrust the results of a singular set of tests at one point in time to determine the overall abilities of a person.
Consider this, also from the summary:
"showed premature thinning of the brain cortex"
That means it is supposed to happen later, but is happening earlier.. but is that really bad? Perhaps that means they are more advanced in some ways.
The thing is our ability still to determine how kids learning what state the brain is in is still primitive enough that I question the degree to which they are able to truly determine what is truly bad or not for them long term...
I do not see how access to a transformative learning device can be bad in the end, except from the standpoint of removing kids from some physical activity. As long as they get some movement and physical exercise, I say let them have as much screen time as they want.
In 20 years, mark my words, scientists will be reversed on this just as they are on everything else they tell people and kids to stay away from.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What about watching TV all day? Does that change the structure of your brain?
How about if you spend many hours every day practicing to play a musical instrument?
What if you get obsessed with playing chess and do that all day?
How about just reading?
And they keep mentioning "screen time", as if it's all the same no matter what you are doing?
Is playing "angry birds" the same as reading "war and peace" in ebook form?
"the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed..."
More than *seven hours* daily? This is 9-10 year olds!
I have a 9 year old and she sleeps a solid 10+ hours a night. Schools is 7 hours. (elementary schools are typically device-free). That leave 7 hours in a day for eating, getting dressed, showering, commuting, cleaning, homework, etc.
I no longer feel guilty letting her play on her ipad for 20 minutes between showering and bed.
Wonder if these are the same people who fear that "radiation" from cell phones will cause cancer?
In the first round of testing, the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world....
So they are more likely to fit in with modern society and are less prone to depression? Feel equal among their peers?
Yeah, seems to me that the problem is "network time" much more than "screen time". And even then, what one is doing with that network time seems super important.
Use it or loose it....
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount?
That word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. Too much screen time as a kid?
arth1's brain was damaged by it and apk hopefully correcting arth'2 lies or erroneous information fixed it for him https://slashdot.org/comments.... which may possibly be the alleged linux distros misinforming arth1 and those distros arth1 spoke of but produced no proof of are making a BIG MISTAKE if arth1 is correct on modern linux distros allegedly using DNS as the primary default resolver and the dangers is presents due to ISP modems and DNS isp's systemd defaults to use in shitty modems isp's are giving users by default with their DNS that aren't patched against the kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw.
And had it been possible to do such studies at the time I think we would have found that use of television changes the structure of the human brain, long periods talking on the telephone to people who would previously have been inaccessible more than once/twice in a lifetime changes the structure of the human brain, reading changes the structure of the human brain, riding a horse changes the structure of the human brain, learning how to build a fire and being up awake at night staring into it changes the structure of the human brain... The connected world is the one we live in now; human brains are adapting. As they always do.
"In the first round of testing, the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world."
That is a ton of screen time, especially for kids that should be in school most of the day.
I realized that I had used the wrong word immediately after I made that post. I should have used the word "paramount." My apologies. And actually, I'm quite certain that my vocabulary is much better because of all the time I spent reading and writing on the internet as a kid.
You are totally right, that is a whole other variable - they are talking about a generic learning tool that could literally be showing them anything, so how well and what they learn is up to what is done with the device...
It's like, are they doing math or watching Spongebob 24x7?
Controlling screen time is way less important than controlling/monitoring content OF the screen. It is a tool, and like any tool could be used for good or ill...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Brain scans of children using papyri look different than those of children using stone tablets. News when sundial shadow falls on 11.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ILLITERATE RETARD LIES KEN DOLL
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Where are all of the people that complained about kids reading comic books instead of the 'classics' years ago?
Al least your kid was reading.
Yes, I really despise this type of people. Probably because I read comic books.
I'm going to buy your kid a toy gun, a drum, and some pick-up sticks for christmas. Maybe some glitter too.
Yours is a reasonable conjecture, and I'd tend to agree on intuition alone. Is there proof to back it up?
That's why there's this study.
Get a screen time limiting app like this one https://screentimewithava.com
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount? If the kid spends his screen time reading books, watching lectures, and discussing thought provoking content, isn't that obviously going to have a very different effect compared to scrolling through instagram all day?
Ultimately, from the social point of view, I'm not sure this matters. Yes, the question needs to be answered for the science to be complete. But let's not pretend that if we find out the content IS the culprit, we'll be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Kids will probably keep on spending large amounts of time consuming games, TV, movies, and social media on their devices, regardless of the cognitive effects. It will be very difficult to reverse this trend - people are addicted to their devices, and advertisers definitely don't want the population-at-large spending less time drinking the corporate Kool-Aid.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Do you think LEDs poison the brain in yet unknown ways and reflective displays don't?
Nothing too special about LED light. it's bright and of a narrow spectrum. CRT phosphor also had few emission lines. But I'm not at all suggesting there are optical effects here.
On the other hand. A strobing panel, no matter the light source, maybe that has a neurological implications. I'd look more at the duration of exposure and the frequency of the strobing than anything. Sadly if we discover there is some addictive properties to a light that flashes at a certain interval people will use that information to get more YouTube clicks.
Most likely it has nothing to do with the lighted panel, and we're just playing with kids dopamine response by exposing them to garbage stimulus like mobile apps and youtube. I remember television being a concerns for my generation, the problems were overblown. We didn't become mindless zombies. Maybe more prone to depression though.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I didn't see anything in the study that lead to this conclusion. It's fine to discuss ideas, but it's not a closed case.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Mod parent comment UP! Good thinking. "Brain science" is, at present, often not science.
Correct:
"The thing is our ability still to determine how kids learning what state the brain is in is still primitive enough that I question the degree to which they are able to truly determine what is truly bad or not for them long term..."
When it first appeared, many people were against rock and roll.
I dunno. We've had books for a LONG time that read the same as e-ink. We just don't have a large body of work on people who spend all day reading.
Is there an appreciable difference between backlight flicker when reading an electronic book and fluorescent lamp flicker when reading a physical book?
Thus, it is possible that early age-related alterations in this region
As I said, we don't know enough to say if this is bad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount?
Actually, it's paramount. Anyone who confuses those two words ought to be eaten by a catamount.
The study just started, it's nowhere near complete. This is some early data to help promote the study.
Yeah but is the study distinguishing between different types of screen time?
Much of social networking is whack-a-mole games and me-too rage: That doesn't require a lot of brainpower or muscle co-ordination.
Studies have already revealed the effect social networking has on mental health: Not good. Emotional development requires experience with the bad behaviour of other people; which, while plentiful in cyberspace, tends to teach copycat responses, not the minimizing/confronting/avoiding responses required in the real world.
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount (sic)? If the kid spends his screen time reading books, watching lectures, and discussing thought provoking content, isn't that obviously going to have a very different effect compared to scrolling through instagram all day?
While I suspect that most people will intuitively agree with your question / assertion, I'm not sure that the 'value judgements' that will almost certainly follow will necessarily hold water. You're also brushing over an equally valid question which is: Is the effect of reading paper books or attending a live lecture in person identical to the effect of reading the same book in electronic form or watching a video of the same lecture?
In her book,Mind Change, Susan Greenfield relates that the electronic forms of learning are, or at least tend to be, less effective than learning gained otherwise. This always made a certain amount of sense to me because of the way our brains seem to 'tag' memories, allowing access to them via various different routes. If, for example, all our reading is done on the same computer we're missing out on the 'physical' memories of the books (colour, size, weight, texture, location, smell, etc.) so we can no longer rely on them as individual keys to access the remembered content of those various books, we just have the one key trying to link to all the books we read on that device. Furthermore it's highly likely that we lose a physical sense of location within the books where a particular piece of information was first read. Weaker links lead to weaker memories, and weaker memories are less likely to be retained over time, at least without refreshing, hence strengthening, them.
In fairness, having linked to her book, I feel I should probably also link to a critique of her work and stated opinions, not only in the interests of balance, but also because it's easy to become blinded by what we believe to be true to the point that we no longer question that belief.
Your statement / question seems to me to run a very real risk of falling into this category of belief.
The study just started, it's nowhere near complete. This is some early data to help promote the study.
My point exactly.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A wheelchair is a transformative mobility device, if you put young children in them instead of teaching them to walk
So I guess all of us that had bikes growing up are permanently crippled....
Oh wait.
Everyone learn to deal with real world things because they are so prevalent. But to ALSO teach them to use a device that can enhance their own abilities mightily, be it foot power or intellect... that is no less than enlarging the scope of what they can do over an entire life.
Lesson complete.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tests are not always a good gauge of brain usability.
I have a feeling we're going to get another 5-10 years of biased tests before we see decent science and a new "conventional wisdom" come about.