Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Screen Time Changes Structure of Kids' Brains, NIH Study Shows (bloombergquint.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the indoor-activities dept.

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.

94 comments

  1. They also tried a brain scan of slashdot editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But found nothing

  2. So what? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      How do they know the changes are detrimental?

      "children who spend more than two hours of daily screen time score lower on thinking and language tests."

      It was right there ... you didn't even need to read the article.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      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.

      Larger flow of shit information. And it's making people dumber every year. Why look, we have an idiot in the Whitehouse who's fucking up this country. And he got there because a bunch of other idiots voted for him.

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame Ken Doll - he's had too much screen time.

    4. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously I give up

    5. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, blame him for everything. GP is a blithering idiot and needs to have data spoon fed to him. Obviously, "scored lower" is synonomous with PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE. Because, you know, you aren't going to score lower if you are distracted by that cute girl sitting next to you, and you aren't going to score lower if you are recovering from the flu, and you aten't going to score lower if you just woke up from sleeping 16 hours.

    6. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than that. He didn't even read the first paragraph of the summary right under the headline.

    7. Re:So what? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Personally, I blame Slashdot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they are learning how better to handle a larger flow of information.

      Oh, as long as you think there's an upside to it, I guess we'll ignore the science.

      Do you also have some things you think about vaccines, climate change, or evolution we should heed instead of listening to, um, actual scientists?

    9. Re:So what? by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do they know the changes are detrimental?

      From the study director:

      We don’t know if it’s a bad thing. 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.

      They're not claiming to know one way or the other.

      Everything "changes the structure of our brains", or learning would not work.

      True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.

      I think they are learning how better to handle a larger flow of information.

      Could be. Or it could be that they're learning to accept information by filtering and processing it less, in fact that would be a more obvious interpretation of a thinned cortex. But the real bottom line is that it's such a large difference that it results in gross structural changes, and we don't know what the effect is. That's worrisome.

      We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible. I can tell you that I'm pushing for my grandkids to be the latter group. Maybe this is a bad choice, maybe these rich kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to their screen-drenched peers. We don't know. But based mostly on how addictive screens are to kids, and on the outcomes of most addictive behaviors, I'm betting on lots of screen time being bad for development, until proved otherwise.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:So what? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      He didn't even read the first paragraph

      I did, I just choose not to blindly believe everything someone tells me without careful consideration.

      Look at the other posts (including my own followup) that points out many possible flaws in just considering "screen time" without thinking about other factors.

      We will not really know the effects until ten years from now, assuming they are still running the study (which it sounds like they plan to).

      Blinky trusting authority is no way to prosper friend.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    11. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.

      On the contrary that's exactly what learning does, and we've known that it does this for at least the last seven years.

    12. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Please don't be mad at our smooth-brained son Ken Doll, he played too much Candy Crush on the toilet and became a retard.

    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the OP spends too much time on his smartphone to have the required attention span to read a /. summary!

    14. Re:So what? by Dorianny · · Score: 0

      Any entertainment activity that takes away from learning time, being it TV or even sports will have a negative effect on 'thinking and language tests"

    15. Re:So what? by gtall · · Score: 0

      More directly, any activity which doesn't require deep thought means an activity not training your brain to think deep thoughts. Spend enough time on that activity and it crowds out other activity.

      The quick test is show one group of kids whizzy math on computers. Let another group of kids work on math problems using pencils and paper. Anyone want to argue the kids with the computers will out perform or even come close to the other group?

    16. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to find, murder, bury, and forget about Kendall. That's the only way to improve the quality of discussions on slashdot. Make it happen.

    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't blame him. He spent more than two hours a day in front of a screen when he was a kid!

    18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You assume that there is such a thing as "authority" therefore you are a lost cause from the get go.

      Blindly trusting self-proclaimed authority is a problem, and I have yet to encounter any species of authority other than the self-proclaimed variant. Of course, you may grant someone else authority over yourself, though why you would do that is beyond my ken. Nonetheless, such proclamation of authority applies only to the proclaimer and not to anyone else.

    19. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible. I can tell you that I'm pushing for my grandkids to be the latter group. Maybe this is a bad choice, maybe these rich kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to their screen-drenched peers. We don't know. But based mostly on how addictive screens are to kids, and on the outcomes of most addictive behaviors, I'm betting on lots of screen time being bad for development, until proved otherwise.

      Replace "digital divide" with "religous divide" and "screens" with "religious nut jobs" ...

    20. Re:So what? by swillden · · Score: 1

      True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.

      On the contrary that's exactly what learning does, and we've known that it does this for at least the last seven years.

      Cool link, thanks. However, the fact that we've observed one other case hardly makes this common. If differences in education commonly created gross structural changes in the brain, this study wouldn't be news.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure but thatâ(TM)s at least a data point for it vs a data point against it.

    22. Re:So what? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible.

      No, the digital divide separates kids whose screen usage is rationally integrated into their lives as a way to explore the larger world, from those who use one device to do nothing but Instagram their meals to each other. Kids in the latter group typically had parents who were babysat by the tube.

    23. Re:So what? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not your personal army.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    24. Re:So what? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That does not imply cause and effect.

      Maybe, on average, people who spend more time in front of screens already score lower on thinking and language tests.

      Studies showed that was true when pretty much the only available screen was the TV. Why should it be any different now?

    25. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just proving the conclusions of a study entitled: "The Confirmation Bias Effect on Reception of Scientific Studies Challenging Cherished Beliefs".

    26. Re:So what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's not very good for their eyes. And you can't argue against the brain's need for a wider range of input, lest some parts atrophy or are taken over by other functions.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is, not all that many studies on how learning affects the structure of the brain have been done, which explains why it hasn't been observed more.

      From what we know about how the brain works, it seems likely that most things we do on a regular basis would affect its structure. IMO that the structure changed in these kids isn't particularly newsworthy, but most so-called science journalists are scientifically illiterate so need their science spoon-fed to them and can't determine themselves what is and isn't relevant.

      What seem more important is that the test scores are lower for these kids, though the ones with higher amounts of screen time are probably the one who study less.

    28. Re:So what? by technophebe · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation. Are the kids who are allowed to spend more than 2 hours a day on screens getting the same quality of parental care as others? Could *that* be affecting their development?

  3. Re: They also tried a brain scan of slashdot edito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next topic

  4. Open data by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re: Open data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the smartest comment I have ever heard. In fact I have become even more ensnared of this point of view if at all possible since reading several opinion pieces ranging from standard quality to even the highest quality pieces and still nothing holds a candle to this comment. I am literally going to print this out and frame it. And then I will gather all the neighbors and we will stare in wonder. lol

    2. Re: Open data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am literally going to print this out and frame it.

      You'd be better off using it as your desktop background.

    3. Re: Open data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if he wants to score lower on cognitive tests.

  5. Is all screen time equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    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?

    1. Re:Is all screen time equal? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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
    2. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    3. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:Is all screen time equal? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      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?

    5. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Is all screen time equal? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Is all screen time equal? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      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.
    8. Re:Is all screen time equal? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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
    9. Re:Is all screen time equal? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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
    10. Re:Is all screen time equal? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Is all screen time equal? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The study just started, it's nowhere near complete. This is some early data to help promote the study.

    13. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but is the study distinguishing between different types of screen time?

    14. Re:Is all screen time equal? by Whibla · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Is all screen time equal? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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
  6. control group ? by swell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:control group ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Many parents limit their kids' access to phones and computers. Some parents don't allow their kids access at all.

      The problem is that these people are likely not "typical". They are likely higher income, higher IQ, and more involved in their kids education in other ways, such as encouraging reading books.

      This could just be a case of C != C.

    2. Re:control group ? by synth7 · · Score: 2

      Oh, I don't know, try the Amish, or the Hutterites, and perhaps even Mormons who don't want their kid's brains full of deviltry. There are plenty of sub-groups within the USA that don't shove a screen into their kid's hands every times they cry because they're bored.

    3. Re:control group ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We were very poor growing up. I was limited to 2 hours of 'electronics' use a day. Be it video games/television or computer time (We finally got a family computer when I was in the 6th grade and everyone had to take turns). I was allowed to earn more time by going above and beyond my typical household chores. I had to do the dishes every day, mow the lawn, shovel the typical stuff kids do to help out. But if I detailed my parents car, or did extra housework I would earn chunks of time I could bank and then have a day where I sat at the computer all day.

      It seemed to work out for me as it forced me to go outside and play as a kid. Shooting cans in trees with my BB gun, exploring the woods and learning to leave marks on trees to follow on your way out.

      To this day it sort of stuck with me where I feel as if I'm just wasting my time by looking at a screen 24/7. I feel I have to 'earn' that screen time so everyday I have to do something productive before I just veg out and play games or waste time on the internet (what I'm doing right now).

      However I've already responded to all my e-mails for the day, cleaned the kitchen, did a few loads of laundry and took the dog out for a walk.

      If I were to cruise Slashdot without doing the above mentioned it is hard to relax and enjoy it as I have my other obligations lingering in the back of my head aware I am procrastinating.

    4. Re:control group ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never met a Mormon have you?
      Go to a meeting sometime. Look for one who isn't completely engrossed in their smartphone, especially the under 18 crowd.
      You won't find one.

    5. Re:control group ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in the houses of people who care.
      My kids have less than 1 hour of screen time daily because there are so many better things to do with this short life.

      We treat Screen time is a treat like Saturday cartoons from way back when.
      The kids understand that there is an appropriate context for screen time and also that too much of something they enjoy can be unhealthy.

      The insane amount of screen time kids have these days is because most of the people having kids wanted a cute pet, not a responsibility. They don't want to give kids the attention they need so they let fortnite, Netflix and Facebook raise them.

      They are really good at "swiping" tho, I mean they can swipe the shit out of that screen.

      Pious PSA time:
      Parents, don't be shit to your kids. Stop making excuses cut the screen time and they'll love you more and you'll resent them less.

      And don't give me any "but the poor brown people don't have a choice" shite

      Im a poor minority and we've worked our way out of ass-poor and are now above the poverty line. Just through throwing out the notion that I'm a perpetual victim and taking some goddamn responsibility over my person. Turns out people respect that.

    6. Re:control group ? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      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.

      All social science faces that problem. You do your best.

      Anyway, there are certainly parents who, while otherwise part of modern society, significantly restrict their kids from screens, to greater or lesser degrees.

    7. Re:control group ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, parents who limit children's screen time exist. I'm one of them.

  7. Have you seen Junior's grades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL I'm on the internets

    1. Re:Have you seen Junior's grades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up David.

  8. I'm talking big picture by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I'm talking big picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They also really need to control for what content is being consumed, are they learning how to program an Arduino, or are they just streaming reality tv.

    2. Re:I'm talking big picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      "Consistent with many volumetric studies, marked thinning was noted in prefrontal cortex. Prefrontal cortex has received much attention in the field of cognitive aging as it has been noted that older adults can perform poorly on tasks that require executive functions presumed to rely on prefrontal cortex, among other structures (Moscovitch and Winocur, 1995; West, 1996; for a critical review, see Greenwood, 2000). Thus, it is possible that early age-related alterations in this region could contribute to age-related declines in executive processing tasks such as working memory tasks (Salat et al., 2002a). The present data are consistent with this possibility."

      Source

    3. Re:I'm talking big picture by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      They also really need to control for what content is being consumed, are they learning how to program an Arduino, or are they just streaming reality tv.

      This is a big one. And they also need to control for the entire generation of heavy TV watching that preceded Android and iOS.

    4. Re:I'm talking big picture by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Especially since "OMG! 'Screen time' is bad for the children!" is just the modern version of "OMG! Television is bad for the children!", which is probably the yester-year version of a similar freakout.

    5. Re:I'm talking big picture by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I'll make it simpler. People who spend less time concentrating, focusing on a single subject and less time verbally communicating, exchanging information and emotional states directly, visually person to person, will show shrinking in those areas of the brain associated with those tasks. Oddly enough the outside layers of the brain would be those areas evolutionarily speaking, we are most able to risk harm to and still survive and reproduce. Screen time, although you are concentrating on that device, the content your are experiencing is widely spread and rapidly changing, so definitely not a single point of focus and when you are communicating, your are communicating with the device, so your emotional state and exchange is hugely different, people do not LOL when they lol, by far most of the time, the same with the expression of other emotions. When direct video exchanges dominate, that problem will ease up because feeling and expression of emotional state will improve with the direct visual contact, preferable upon as large a screen as possible.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:I'm talking big picture by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I do not see how access to a transformative learning device can be bad in the end,

      A wheelchair is a transformative mobility device, if you put young children in them instead of teaching them to walk it would be bad for them.

  9. More questions than answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

  10. Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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.

  11. 3 Tesla MRI On Children For 10+ Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if these are the same people who fear that "radiation" from cell phones will cause cancer?

  12. Is that good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

  13. Use it or loose it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use it or loose it....

  14. arth1's brain was damaged by it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  15. The mor things change... by sphealey · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:The mor things change... by sphealey · · Score: 1

      LOL

  16. More than 7 hours per day ?! by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    "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.

  17. Exactly by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Exactly by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I think it's obvious that content matters. Between reading a book on a screen and on paper, the only differences I can think of are posture and eye strain.

      Larger fonts on a screen allow a longer viewing distance and better posture, but may cause eye strain due to backlight flicker. Books often have tiny font and are less well lit, but have a more stable image. You also have to hold them up with your hands, so it might contribute to arm strength.

  18. Tablets vs scrolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brain scans of children using papyri look different than those of children using stone tablets. News when sundial shadow falls on 11.

  19. ILLITERATE NAZI FAGGOT PROPAGANDIST KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  20. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ILLITERATE RETARD LIES NAZI FAGGOT 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.

  21. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ILLITERATE RETARD LIES NAZI FAGGOT 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

  22. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ILLITERATE RETARD LIES NAZI FAGGOT 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

  23. Where are all of the people... by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 1

    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.

     

  24. So what to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a screen time limiting app like this one https://screentimewithava.com

  25. Mod parent comment UP! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Fluorescent lamp flicker by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is there an appreciable difference between backlight flicker when reading an electronic book and fluorescent lamp flicker when reading a physical book?

    1. Re:Fluorescent lamp flicker by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I do a lot of reading, but almost entirely ebooks because I can control the font and size. AND I can go white on black, which I find much easier on my eyes.

    2. Re:Fluorescent lamp flicker by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You can use a halogen bulb for your reading light. They're not that expensive.

  27. Proving my point by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    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
  28. Social networking is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world ...

    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.

    ... emotional development and mental health.

    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.

  29. Oh really.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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
  30. Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.