12 ms·

Toddlers who use touchscreens show attention differences

142 points by rustoo 6y ago

tmaly 6y ago
There is an upside for kids 5 and older here. My daughter has to take this standardized map test in Connecticut. It is all computer based. If you are not comfortable using the computer, you do not do well on the test. The teacher uses this online problems site IXL to help them get use to answering the questions on the computer. This was also really helpful when everyone had to do school remotely. Th
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  IXL is infuriating. My first bookmarklets were written to convince my parents that the website was marking my answers incorrectly so I didn't have to use it any more. (No comment on IXL's effectiveness; I have absolutely no idea whether it helped or hindered or what.)
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  How does this work for young kids who can barely or can't read? Seems like it's a gateway to systemic bias.
  - tmaly 6y ago
    For reading, my wife and I read to our daughter and worked on phonics using regular books. There is really no shortcut for learning to read. You have to put in the time with your kids.
natcombs 6y ago
I was thinking "attention" as in "attention deficit", but this test was "find a red apple amongst blue apples". They're not sure if finding red apples amongst blue apples is beneficial though: >> “What we need to know next is whether this attention difference is advantageous or detrimental to their everyday life.”
- microtherion 6y ago
  I'm sure that if they found that touchscreen users are worse at this task, they'd have little difficulty declaring this detrimental to their everyday life.
frereubu 6y ago
This is just a press release and I haven't read the full paper, but from this top-level summary it seems like it could also be construed as "toddlers who have a higher exposure to touchscreens are better at using touchscreens later on." This feels like it could just be a function of practice, or perhaps familiarity with computers (not sure whether they controlled for computer use - did the "non-touchscreen" kids use computing devices in general as much as the "touchscreen" kids?), not attention necessarily.
lymenlee 6y ago
For this little gain, at what cost to the future growth of the kid? Attention span? Ability to focus on anything other than small screens? Social ability? This research should really address the pro/con for the kid in the long run rather than just benefit of finding target using their fingers.
- the-pigeon 6y ago
  The opposite can argued too. That children who don't use tablets have shorter attention spans and worst social skills. The "natural is better" argument is not research based. Society has long preached that things like reading books is great for kids but it's entirely unnatural just like tablets. Generally research in this area has been extremely biased against electronics. You also have to control for the type of activities they are doing on the tablet. For example the mental stimulation when playing an educational Daniel Tiger game is completely different than watching a toy sales driven TV show like Transformers. Both can be done on a tablet though.
  - PMan74 6y ago
    > Society has long preached that things like reading books is great for kids Wasn't always the case, Plato felt it would dull your memory. "They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
    - DevX101 6y ago
      Plato was probably right. As access to information has become ubiquitous, we increasingly don't need to rely on our memories. Ancient scholars would be able to recite long passages from memory. The printing press made that unnecessary if you could access a book. Now Google has made even books obsolete for some types of information. The internet is the world's memory. What Plato missed was that our ability to do higher order reasoning and synthesis has grown by leaps with books and now the internet. That's a pretty good trade-off for losing some memory.
Gieskanne 6y ago
"12-month-old infants who had different levels of touchscreen usage" Why the fuck would you have infants with 'levels of touchscreen usage' at 12 month?
- emteycz 6y ago
  Nobody knows, but it happens and so we should research the effects.
- securingsincity 6y ago
  While we didn't just hand my son a device, the reality is he grabbed our phones at 1 year and played with it. Even in those quick grabs, it was intuitive enough to watch him play with pulling down the notification drawer or tapping on things. I would say that's minimal interaction but certainly a different level then someone who plops a 1 year old in front of an ipad or one that has no electronics in the home.
  - User23 6y ago
    To elaborate on this, very young human beings have a fascinating aptitude for figuring things out. They aren't very good at it, or at least lack the motor skills to apply what they learn, but you can tell that there is a lot of cerebral activity happening as they try to puzzle things out. So when a puzzle presents itself, such as "why is mom staring at this glowing rectangle so much?" they will will want to try and find out why.
  - toxican 6y ago
    My 1 year old twins have been trying to play with my wife and I's phones since they were old enough to start grabbing stuff. They also make for great little distractions during diaper changes when they'd otherwise try to sit up or flip around. We usually lock the screen before we let them play with the phones, but occasionally I'll let them swipe and tap around just to see what they can figure out.
- untog 6y ago
  I imagine (though the full study hasn’t been published yet to check) that they recruited children that already had X amount of touchscreen usage each day. I very much doubt they forced children into different brackets of touchscreen use as part of the study.
RYFN 6y ago
This is a shamefully clickbatey title from the University press office! To quote the article, "...We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention".
- jewelry 6y ago
  Well, maybe that's also a relieving result that use of tablet is not causing harm at this area, if not helped. Which I believed strongly as long as the material is carefully curated for education not just youtube Kids. Even science channel video is better than youtube kids.
  - RYFN 6y ago
    The "not causing harm" being good is a very fair point!
asymptotic 6y ago
I haven’t read the paper. But if the researchers were bringing in children regularly for testing involving eye tracking equipment, why not also test their ability to manipulate physical objects, recognize faces, and track faces? That all seems like low hanging fruit.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  I often have this thought about research and usually assume that the answer is cost/resources. Research seems poorly directed, like lots of ad hoc studies without cooperation and planning for how it will be used for the sector overall. Not a research scientist; probably a very naive view. Maybe there's more higher level cooperation/symbiosis/planning/whatever than I perceive?
Nuzzerino 6y ago
> "What we need to know next is whether this attention difference is advantageous or detrimental to their everyday life." I think they should find this out and then give the public a ring. Until then, feels like clickbait.
untog 6y ago
> There has been growing concern that toddler touchscreen use may negatively impact their developing attention but this fear is not based on empirical evidence.” That isn’t surprising to me: there are no inherent properties attached to a touch screen that would affect attention. But there are plenty of fast paced games and videos that could, and those tend to be viewed through touch screens. So I still wonder about that (though it’s not all that different to watching too much TV, something people have discussed for decades now)
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Adverts aside, TV shows usually require 10s of minutes of concentration on a connected subject thread (depends a lot on the programmes of course). Touchscreen activities are usually shorter with brief reactive interactions?
zyang 6y ago
Studies like these are pointless. Parents that give young kids touchscreens tend to not spend quality time with their kids to begin with.
- User23 6y ago
  A better way to put this is that the causality, if any, is unclear. However, it's very difficult to construct an ethical study on human participants that is designed to show causality. So we're usually left with, at best, a moderately rigorous abductive[1] conclusion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
- bmh100 6y ago
  It's important to understand causation. Engaged parents will still want to spend quality time with their children either way, but they will still want to know the impact. Even engaged parents let young children play with toys on their own from time to time. How are physical toys different than touchscreen "toys"?
crmrc114 6y ago
So, per this page: "The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually rewarded the child when they found the red apple, allowing them to perform the task even though they were too young to verbally describe what they were doing." No discussion as to any other effect of screen use. Why did this need study? Humans who use a thing more often are better at working with thing? Better studies on kids with screen time focuses on spatial development: https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=post_coundfpub https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... "Greater daily digital usage was associated with lower visual spatial performance. Spending even small amounts of time daily with integrated technology was associated with lower WPPSI-IV overall intelligence test scores, and visual spatial scores. Those with the least amount of resources are at the most risk for lower visual spatial abilities"
- kazinator 6y ago
  > Why did this need study? The answer is probably the usual: money. Someone got a "use it or lose it" budget.
- nelaboras 6y ago
  In addition there is a key qualitative element: are all uses equal? Is watching Teletubbies or Paw Patrol equal to nature documentaries? Is playing addictive repetitive games different than those solving puzzles or following a story? Is videoconferencing with grandma the same or better or worse as doing a math training game? The key issue often is the parents' role and guidance. Let your kid aimlessly click through YouTube? Or are you fostering their skills and challenge and motivate them to learn something new?
  - arendtio 6y ago
    Exactly what I thought. A few years ago, I was in a hotel where one family gave their kids tablets to watch movies during breakfast. I can hardly imagine that this practice is beneficial for the kids development.
cbanek 6y ago
> The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually rewarded the child when they found the red apple, allowing them to perform the task even though they were too young to verbally describe what they were doing. First off, this is brilliant use of eye tracking. I could see eye tracking being so useful for learning, such as tracking attention, knowing when to need a break, etc. Eye tracking is super useful in user testing - for example I was watching some user testing at a major corporation and we used eye tracking. We instructed the user to minimize the app and then open it again, and we noticed that when it was in the systray, people really got confused. It was really easy to see because we could see where their eyes were scanning. Using eye tracking for people who can't speak (for any reason, maybe physical or mental injury or disability, and here age / language barrier) could be huge. The attention differences are certainly interesting, although I wonder how much of it might be training to use touchscreens, or the idea of a screen that it might change at any time, without related motion. This is completely unnatural, as you would normally think something will change when something walks over to it, or moves slightly. Fixed objects tend to fade more into the background of our mental landscape, which is the basis of a lot of sleight of hand. Like removing something when you can't see it. It'd be interesting to compare against something that doesn't change when you interact with it, like television screens. (is it the touch part, or the screen part?) I also wonder how touchscreens are sometimes differently interpreted by animals, kind of like mirrors are. For example, some cats seem to think that the little toy apps are under them, or inside of them, or are just generally confused. It's really quite fascinating.
- bmh100 6y ago
  As the study notes: 'Dr Ana Maria Portugal, main researcher on the project points out “We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention as it may also be that children who are generally more attracted to bright, colourful features seek out touchscreen devices more than those who are not.”' This is an important confounding factor. My opinion is that toddlers often spend time with media that are brighter and more colorful than the surrounding environment, e.g. animated videos for children or educational apps for young children. A better study would take that into account.
lordnacho 6y ago
One interesting thing I noticed is my kids who have grown up with touchscreens think that everything is a touchscreen. One of them even tried to swipe one of those adverts that's made of a big flatscreen. What confuses them is that some flatscreens aren't touchscreens, eg my macbook, while most of the smaller screens like phones and tablets are. Overall I'd say it's pretty hard to stay conservative about exposing them to screens. They're all over the place now, if I don't give them one they'll want mine. Plus their friends see them everywhere, too. I'm trying to at least steer the screen time towards useful things like math and coding, but it's not always easy. I have this scary feeling that how you spent your screen time as a kid of this generation (current children) is going to be one of the major determinants of your life. You can use the relatively new power of having all the world's knowledge at your fingertips, or you can use your time looking at cat pictures. The difference is going to magnify the natural differences that occured in previous generations, as the kids who want to learn about stuff can teach themselves while there's never been a better way to waste time for kids who are inclined that way.
- aantix 6y ago
  My oldest (7) is logged into my Google account for Youtube. He subscribes to Minecraft and Fortnite Youtubers all the time. Periodically I will unsubscribe him to *most of those video game channels. And in turn, subscribe him to a few Science channels. He's recently gotten into soccer, so I subscribed him to a couple of beginner-howto soccer channels as well. His Youtube recommendations are now more science oriented and he seems to enjoy them. He doesn't seem to notice, yet. You can manage your channel subscriptions here: https://www.youtube.com/feed/channels https://www.youtube.com/feed/channels
  - asadlionpk 6y ago
    that's a neat idea. Let me try that.
  - grugagag 6y ago
    Kudos for currating their videos. My nephew who was initially very bright and interested in so many things ended up being captured by minecraft youtube videos for years. He eventually stopped but that time was completely wasted. I used to play chess with him but a soon as he got into youtubing he lost interest into everything else
lacker 6y ago
The narrative around screen time seems to have been totally overthrown by the coronavirus. A year ago the health authorities were recommending limiting childrens’ screen time. Now at a public school in California our children have mandatory three hours of screen time per day. It just goes to show that these recommendations are not really based on science. It’s more like they are based on guesses by reasonable people when the science isn’t really that confident one way or the other. My personal suspicion is that some forms of screen time, like video calls with family or educational apps, are good for kids. And some forms, like watching TV, are bad for them.
- xphilter 6y ago
  I don’t think that’s true. As a parent, all my decisions are made by balancing a host of factors. Pre covid I limited screens because they should be talking, reading, playing with other kids, being active, etc. with covid, many of those alternatives were taken away so I’ve had to be flexible in the short term to again balance everything so my kids can interact with other kids and get access to learning opportunities. Post covid, I’ll do my best to limit screens again.
- nelaboras 6y ago
  Or the mandatory 3h of lessons are better than no lessons even if it means kids are staring a screens? It's not all black and white. That said, obviously the recommendations are not fully science based because the science is not clear-cut. One study will tell you about the spatial skills and reaction ability of ego shooters, another of the negative sides such as normalisation of violence, reduced quality of sleep, etc.
hibby 6y ago
The headline is a little misleading - from the article itself. "Dr Ana Maria Portugal, main researcher on the project points out “We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention as it may also be that children who are generally more attracted to bright, colourful features seek out touchscreen devices more than those who are not.”"
movieswebsite 6y ago
https://www.supportmearah.in/2019/09/use-custom-permalink-blogspot-for-seo.html https://www.supportmearah.in/2019/09/use-custom-permalink-bl...
surround 6y ago
I’m skeptical how insightful this study really is. They seem to have found that toddlers who have more screen time are better at using screens.
cik2e 6y ago
This made me think of studies that correlate growing up playing fast-paced video games, shooters specifically if I recall, with better driving down the road (drumroll). This correlates with my own experience, especially as I transitioned to defensive driving in my mid 20s. I am always keenly aware of what nearby cars are doing, especially on the highway, and have become great at anticipating driver stupidity. Things like a slight steering wiggle before trying to cut across multiple lanes to make an exist. I've averted countless accidents with this heightened awareness. And on the other hand, there were multiple kids in high school who would ended up having 2-3 accidents in their first year of driving. Obviously there are tons of factors involved but I like to think that my devotion to CS and TFC weren't a complete waste of time.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
Somewhat related, kindergartners cannot sit upright all day and do not have the wrist strength to learn writing anymore. Many 5 year olds cannot grasp a pencil with their thumb and forefingers. They hold it more like a three year old, in a full hand grasp. Also, by mid-day the children cannot sit up any longer and tend to slump over in the chairs, laying against the table. These are not sleep deprived teens, they're usually full of energy at that age. The teachers told us that the first few months of kinder include an exercise regimen of core and wrist strength building just so they can sit up and hold a pencil. For instance, one of the exercises is a modified "cat cow" position (familiar to yogis). Screen time is leading to more than attention differences, it appears it leads to physiological differences as well.
jb775 6y ago
I have an 20 month old and am planning to get him a tablet for long car rides, but that's it until he's a little older. Most content kids consume on tablets is essentially junk food for the brain. Also, humans aren't meant to stare at screens all day long...the unknown impacts of extended screen use aren't worth it in exchange for a few lackluster benefits. Not to mention eliminating boredom from kids lives and therefore possibly cultivating a generation of extreme ADHD.
wiradikusuma 6y ago
I notice a common theme in the comments: We're tech people (some even want high engagements for their apps) yet we're concerned of our kids' screen time. I'm in the same boat. Maybe because we're from generation(s) where screen is unnatural (except TV) and we want our kids to have the same positive, "natural", experience like ours. But I wonder a few generations forward, maybe the future parents will not have the same aversion like ours since they grew up with screens? (Regardless of the answer, I'm not letting my kids stare screens all day, even though that's what I do daily and how I earn my living)
- grugagag 6y ago
  I wouldnt worry, they’ll get so much screen time throughout their lives that they’ll develop an aversion to it
- asdff 6y ago
  I want to limit my child's screen time explicitly because my screen time was limitless, and I blew it doing dumb things and feeling more and more isolated rather than more heavily pursuing real life interests and interpersonal relationships. Excess screen time lost me a decade of guitar playing that I can never get back. I don't want my child to suffer the same crushing self realization at 25 years old.
rectang 6y ago
Tangential question: What is the effect of touchscreen usage by toddlers on their peripheral vision?
supernova87a 6y ago
Sorry, I had a lot of trouble focusing enough to read the article.
kahlonel 6y ago
I personally know kids that don't eat their food unless they are in front of a screen (touch or not), because the only thing that captures their attention are colorful blobs. I find it very detrimental to the kids' mental growth because they don't observe things outside of a screen.
godot 6y ago
There's already a lot of discussions re: other aspects of screen time here, so I'd just like to touch on exactly what is on this study -- ability to search for things faster after "screen training". (like faster reflexes) Before anyone takes this study and says "so screen time has positive influence" and gives it to their 1 year-old, I'd like to give an anecdote from my own experience. I grew up in the 80s and my family was one of the earliest to own an NES. According to my parents, I started playing the NES when I was 4 or 5. I have some of the fastest reflexes (when it comes to video games or similar activities) of any friends I know; and I played in fighting games tournaments in college. This is a genre of competitive games where millisecond-reflexes can determine the outcome of the game. (of course, I was a low tier tournament player and there are tons of world class players way better and faster than me) I'd say my takeaway is that sure, maybe that kind of "screen training" helps with reflexes and attention, but you don't have to start that early. If you start at 5 years old instead of 1 year old, you might just get as much of the benefits, without the down sides of vision problems etc. that comes with having screen time too early.
dcolkitt 6y ago
One important thing to keep in mind with any headline like this: twin studies have consistently shown that family environment contributes a negligible component to the cross-sectional variation of long-term adult outcomes. Consider any sort of child-rearing decision. In this case letting your toddler use an iPad or not. Is it within the realm of normal variation you'd find between families? In this case, yes: some families let kids have a lot of screen time, and some families strictly limit screen time. Well then, it almost certainly will have essentially zero impact on long-term adult outcomes. It may have a transitory short-term impact. Analogously, reading to kids may lead to learning to read at an earlier age. But twin studies tell us that by adulthood, the effect regresses to the mean. I.e. reading to kids a lot won't give them higher reading comprehension when they grow up.

142 points by rustoo 6y ago

There is an upside for kids 5 and older here. My daughter has to take this standardized map test in Connecticut. It is all computer based. If you are not comfortable using the computer, you do not do well on the test. The teacher uses this online problems site IXL to help them get use to answering the questions on the computer. This was also really helpful when everyone had to do school remotely. Th

wizzwizz4 6y ago
IXL is infuriating. My first bookmarklets were written to convince my parents that the website was marking my answers incorrectly so I didn't have to use it any more. (No comment on IXL's effectiveness; I have absolutely no idea whether it helped or hindered or what.)
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
How does this work for young kids who can barely or can't read? Seems like it's a gateway to systemic bias.
- tmaly 6y ago
  For reading, my wife and I read to our daughter and worked on phonics using regular books. There is really no shortcut for learning to read. You have to put in the time with your kids.

natcombs 6y ago

I was thinking "attention" as in "attention deficit", but this test was "find a red apple amongst blue apples". They're not sure if finding red apples amongst blue apples is beneficial though: >> “What we need to know next is whether this attention difference is advantageous or detrimental to their everyday life.”

microtherion 6y ago
I'm sure that if they found that touchscreen users are worse at this task, they'd have little difficulty declaring this detrimental to their everyday life.

frereubu 6y ago

This is just a press release and I haven't read the full paper, but from this top-level summary it seems like it could also be construed as "toddlers who have a higher exposure to touchscreens are better at using touchscreens later on." This feels like it could just be a function of practice, or perhaps familiarity with computers (not sure whether they controlled for computer use - did the "non-touchscreen" kids use computing devices in general as much as the "touchscreen" kids?), not attention necessarily.

lymenlee 6y ago

For this little gain, at what cost to the future growth of the kid? Attention span? Ability to focus on anything other than small screens? Social ability? This research should really address the pro/con for the kid in the long run rather than just benefit of finding target using their fingers.

the-pigeon 6y ago
The opposite can argued too. That children who don't use tablets have shorter attention spans and worst social skills. The "natural is better" argument is not research based. Society has long preached that things like reading books is great for kids but it's entirely unnatural just like tablets. Generally research in this area has been extremely biased against electronics. You also have to control for the type of activities they are doing on the tablet. For example the mental stimulation when playing an educational Daniel Tiger game is completely different than watching a toy sales driven TV show like Transformers. Both can be done on a tablet though.
- PMan74 6y ago
  > Society has long preached that things like reading books is great for kids Wasn't always the case, Plato felt it would dull your memory. "They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
  - DevX101 6y ago
    Plato was probably right. As access to information has become ubiquitous, we increasingly don't need to rely on our memories. Ancient scholars would be able to recite long passages from memory. The printing press made that unnecessary if you could access a book. Now Google has made even books obsolete for some types of information. The internet is the world's memory. What Plato missed was that our ability to do higher order reasoning and synthesis has grown by leaps with books and now the internet. That's a pretty good trade-off for losing some memory.

Gieskanne 6y ago

"12-month-old infants who had different levels of touchscreen usage" Why the fuck would you have infants with 'levels of touchscreen usage' at 12 month?

emteycz 6y ago
Nobody knows, but it happens and so we should research the effects.
securingsincity 6y ago
While we didn't just hand my son a device, the reality is he grabbed our phones at 1 year and played with it. Even in those quick grabs, it was intuitive enough to watch him play with pulling down the notification drawer or tapping on things. I would say that's minimal interaction but certainly a different level then someone who plops a 1 year old in front of an ipad or one that has no electronics in the home.
- User23 6y ago
  To elaborate on this, very young human beings have a fascinating aptitude for figuring things out. They aren't very good at it, or at least lack the motor skills to apply what they learn, but you can tell that there is a lot of cerebral activity happening as they try to puzzle things out. So when a puzzle presents itself, such as "why is mom staring at this glowing rectangle so much?" they will will want to try and find out why.
- toxican 6y ago
  My 1 year old twins have been trying to play with my wife and I's phones since they were old enough to start grabbing stuff. They also make for great little distractions during diaper changes when they'd otherwise try to sit up or flip around. We usually lock the screen before we let them play with the phones, but occasionally I'll let them swipe and tap around just to see what they can figure out.
untog 6y ago
I imagine (though the full study hasn’t been published yet to check) that they recruited children that already had X amount of touchscreen usage each day. I very much doubt they forced children into different brackets of touchscreen use as part of the study.

RYFN 6y ago

This is a shamefully clickbatey title from the University press office! To quote the article, "...We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention".

jewelry 6y ago
Well, maybe that's also a relieving result that use of tablet is not causing harm at this area, if not helped. Which I believed strongly as long as the material is carefully curated for education not just youtube Kids. Even science channel video is better than youtube kids.
- RYFN 6y ago
  The "not causing harm" being good is a very fair point!

asymptotic 6y ago

I haven’t read the paper. But if the researchers were bringing in children regularly for testing involving eye tracking equipment, why not also test their ability to manipulate physical objects, recognize faces, and track faces? That all seems like low hanging fruit.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I often have this thought about research and usually assume that the answer is cost/resources. Research seems poorly directed, like lots of ad hoc studies without cooperation and planning for how it will be used for the sector overall. Not a research scientist; probably a very naive view. Maybe there's more higher level cooperation/symbiosis/planning/whatever than I perceive?

Nuzzerino 6y ago

> "What we need to know next is whether this attention difference is advantageous or detrimental to their everyday life." I think they should find this out and then give the public a ring. Until then, feels like clickbait.

untog 6y ago

> There has been growing concern that toddler touchscreen use may negatively impact their developing attention but this fear is not based on empirical evidence.” That isn’t surprising to me: there are no inherent properties attached to a touch screen that would affect attention. But there are plenty of fast paced games and videos that could, and those tend to be viewed through touch screens. So I still wonder about that (though it’s not all that different to watching too much TV, something people have discussed for decades now)

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Adverts aside, TV shows usually require 10s of minutes of concentration on a connected subject thread (depends a lot on the programmes of course). Touchscreen activities are usually shorter with brief reactive interactions?

zyang 6y ago

Studies like these are pointless. Parents that give young kids touchscreens tend to not spend quality time with their kids to begin with.

User23 6y ago
A better way to put this is that the causality, if any, is unclear. However, it's very difficult to construct an ethical study on human participants that is designed to show causality. So we're usually left with, at best, a moderately rigorous abductive[1] conclusion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
bmh100 6y ago
It's important to understand causation. Engaged parents will still want to spend quality time with their children either way, but they will still want to know the impact. Even engaged parents let young children play with toys on their own from time to time. How are physical toys different than touchscreen "toys"?

crmrc114 6y ago

So, per this page: "The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually rewarded the child when they found the red apple, allowing them to perform the task even though they were too young to verbally describe what they were doing." No discussion as to any other effect of screen use. Why did this need study? Humans who use a thing more often are better at working with thing? Better studies on kids with screen time focuses on spatial development: https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=post_coundfpub https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... "Greater daily digital usage was associated with lower visual spatial performance. Spending even small amounts of time daily with integrated technology was associated with lower WPPSI-IV overall intelligence test scores, and visual spatial scores. Those with the least amount of resources are at the most risk for lower visual spatial abilities"

kazinator 6y ago
> Why did this need study? The answer is probably the usual: money. Someone got a "use it or lose it" budget.
nelaboras 6y ago
In addition there is a key qualitative element: are all uses equal? Is watching Teletubbies or Paw Patrol equal to nature documentaries? Is playing addictive repetitive games different than those solving puzzles or following a story? Is videoconferencing with grandma the same or better or worse as doing a math training game? The key issue often is the parents' role and guidance. Let your kid aimlessly click through YouTube? Or are you fostering their skills and challenge and motivate them to learn something new?
- arendtio 6y ago
  Exactly what I thought. A few years ago, I was in a hotel where one family gave their kids tablets to watch movies during breakfast. I can hardly imagine that this practice is beneficial for the kids development.

cbanek 6y ago

> The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually rewarded the child when they found the red apple, allowing them to perform the task even though they were too young to verbally describe what they were doing. First off, this is brilliant use of eye tracking. I could see eye tracking being so useful for learning, such as tracking attention, knowing when to need a break, etc. Eye tracking is super useful in user testing - for example I was watching some user testing at a major corporation and we used eye tracking. We instructed the user to minimize the app and then open it again, and we noticed that when it was in the systray, people really got confused. It was really easy to see because we could see where their eyes were scanning. Using eye tracking for people who can't speak (for any reason, maybe physical or mental injury or disability, and here age / language barrier) could be huge. The attention differences are certainly interesting, although I wonder how much of it might be training to use touchscreens, or the idea of a screen that it might change at any time, without related motion. This is completely unnatural, as you would normally think something will change when something walks over to it, or moves slightly. Fixed objects tend to fade more into the background of our mental landscape, which is the basis of a lot of sleight of hand. Like removing something when you can't see it. It'd be interesting to compare against something that doesn't change when you interact with it, like television screens. (is it the touch part, or the screen part?) I also wonder how touchscreens are sometimes differently interpreted by animals, kind of like mirrors are. For example, some cats seem to think that the little toy apps are under them, or inside of them, or are just generally confused. It's really quite fascinating.

bmh100 6y ago
As the study notes: 'Dr Ana Maria Portugal, main researcher on the project points out “We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention as it may also be that children who are generally more attracted to bright, colourful features seek out touchscreen devices more than those who are not.”' This is an important confounding factor. My opinion is that toddlers often spend time with media that are brighter and more colorful than the surrounding environment, e.g. animated videos for children or educational apps for young children. A better study would take that into account.

lordnacho 6y ago

One interesting thing I noticed is my kids who have grown up with touchscreens think that everything is a touchscreen. One of them even tried to swipe one of those adverts that's made of a big flatscreen. What confuses them is that some flatscreens aren't touchscreens, eg my macbook, while most of the smaller screens like phones and tablets are. Overall I'd say it's pretty hard to stay conservative about exposing them to screens. They're all over the place now, if I don't give them one they'll want mine. Plus their friends see them everywhere, too. I'm trying to at least steer the screen time towards useful things like math and coding, but it's not always easy. I have this scary feeling that how you spent your screen time as a kid of this generation (current children) is going to be one of the major determinants of your life. You can use the relatively new power of having all the world's knowledge at your fingertips, or you can use your time looking at cat pictures. The difference is going to magnify the natural differences that occured in previous generations, as the kids who want to learn about stuff can teach themselves while there's never been a better way to waste time for kids who are inclined that way.

aantix 6y ago
My oldest (7) is logged into my Google account for Youtube. He subscribes to Minecraft and Fortnite Youtubers all the time. Periodically I will unsubscribe him to *most of those video game channels. And in turn, subscribe him to a few Science channels. He's recently gotten into soccer, so I subscribed him to a couple of beginner-howto soccer channels as well. His Youtube recommendations are now more science oriented and he seems to enjoy them. He doesn't seem to notice, yet. You can manage your channel subscriptions here: https://www.youtube.com/feed/channels https://www.youtube.com/feed/channels
- asadlionpk 6y ago
  that's a neat idea. Let me try that.
- grugagag 6y ago
  Kudos for currating their videos. My nephew who was initially very bright and interested in so many things ended up being captured by minecraft youtube videos for years. He eventually stopped but that time was completely wasted. I used to play chess with him but a soon as he got into youtubing he lost interest into everything else

lacker 6y ago

The narrative around screen time seems to have been totally overthrown by the coronavirus. A year ago the health authorities were recommending limiting childrens’ screen time. Now at a public school in California our children have mandatory three hours of screen time per day. It just goes to show that these recommendations are not really based on science. It’s more like they are based on guesses by reasonable people when the science isn’t really that confident one way or the other. My personal suspicion is that some forms of screen time, like video calls with family or educational apps, are good for kids. And some forms, like watching TV, are bad for them.

xphilter 6y ago
I don’t think that’s true. As a parent, all my decisions are made by balancing a host of factors. Pre covid I limited screens because they should be talking, reading, playing with other kids, being active, etc. with covid, many of those alternatives were taken away so I’ve had to be flexible in the short term to again balance everything so my kids can interact with other kids and get access to learning opportunities. Post covid, I’ll do my best to limit screens again.
nelaboras 6y ago
Or the mandatory 3h of lessons are better than no lessons even if it means kids are staring a screens? It's not all black and white. That said, obviously the recommendations are not fully science based because the science is not clear-cut. One study will tell you about the spatial skills and reaction ability of ego shooters, another of the negative sides such as normalisation of violence, reduced quality of sleep, etc.

hibby 6y ago

The headline is a little misleading - from the article itself. "Dr Ana Maria Portugal, main researcher on the project points out “We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention as it may also be that children who are generally more attracted to bright, colourful features seek out touchscreen devices more than those who are not.”"

movieswebsite 6y ago

https://www.supportmearah.in/2019/09/use-custom-permalink-blogspot-for-seo.html https://www.supportmearah.in/2019/09/use-custom-permalink-bl...

surround 6y ago

I’m skeptical how insightful this study really is. They seem to have found that toddlers who have more screen time are better at using screens.

cik2e 6y ago

This made me think of studies that correlate growing up playing fast-paced video games, shooters specifically if I recall, with better driving down the road (drumroll). This correlates with my own experience, especially as I transitioned to defensive driving in my mid 20s. I am always keenly aware of what nearby cars are doing, especially on the highway, and have become great at anticipating driver stupidity. Things like a slight steering wiggle before trying to cut across multiple lanes to make an exist. I've averted countless accidents with this heightened awareness. And on the other hand, there were multiple kids in high school who would ended up having 2-3 accidents in their first year of driving. Obviously there are tons of factors involved but I like to think that my devotion to CS and TFC weren't a complete waste of time.

ryanmarsh 6y ago

Somewhat related, kindergartners cannot sit upright all day and do not have the wrist strength to learn writing anymore. Many 5 year olds cannot grasp a pencil with their thumb and forefingers. They hold it more like a three year old, in a full hand grasp. Also, by mid-day the children cannot sit up any longer and tend to slump over in the chairs, laying against the table. These are not sleep deprived teens, they're usually full of energy at that age. The teachers told us that the first few months of kinder include an exercise regimen of core and wrist strength building just so they can sit up and hold a pencil. For instance, one of the exercises is a modified "cat cow" position (familiar to yogis). Screen time is leading to more than attention differences, it appears it leads to physiological differences as well.

jb775 6y ago

I have an 20 month old and am planning to get him a tablet for long car rides, but that's it until he's a little older. Most content kids consume on tablets is essentially junk food for the brain. Also, humans aren't meant to stare at screens all day long...the unknown impacts of extended screen use aren't worth it in exchange for a few lackluster benefits. Not to mention eliminating boredom from kids lives and therefore possibly cultivating a generation of extreme ADHD.

wiradikusuma 6y ago

I notice a common theme in the comments: We're tech people (some even want high engagements for their apps) yet we're concerned of our kids' screen time. I'm in the same boat. Maybe because we're from generation(s) where screen is unnatural (except TV) and we want our kids to have the same positive, "natural", experience like ours. But I wonder a few generations forward, maybe the future parents will not have the same aversion like ours since they grew up with screens? (Regardless of the answer, I'm not letting my kids stare screens all day, even though that's what I do daily and how I earn my living)

grugagag 6y ago
I wouldnt worry, they’ll get so much screen time throughout their lives that they’ll develop an aversion to it
asdff 6y ago
I want to limit my child's screen time explicitly because my screen time was limitless, and I blew it doing dumb things and feeling more and more isolated rather than more heavily pursuing real life interests and interpersonal relationships. Excess screen time lost me a decade of guitar playing that I can never get back. I don't want my child to suffer the same crushing self realization at 25 years old.

rectang 6y ago

Tangential question: What is the effect of touchscreen usage by toddlers on their peripheral vision?

supernova87a 6y ago

Sorry, I had a lot of trouble focusing enough to read the article.

kahlonel 6y ago

I personally know kids that don't eat their food unless they are in front of a screen (touch or not), because the only thing that captures their attention are colorful blobs. I find it very detrimental to the kids' mental growth because they don't observe things outside of a screen.

godot 6y ago

There's already a lot of discussions re: other aspects of screen time here, so I'd just like to touch on exactly what is on this study -- ability to search for things faster after "screen training". (like faster reflexes) Before anyone takes this study and says "so screen time has positive influence" and gives it to their 1 year-old, I'd like to give an anecdote from my own experience. I grew up in the 80s and my family was one of the earliest to own an NES. According to my parents, I started playing the NES when I was 4 or 5. I have some of the fastest reflexes (when it comes to video games or similar activities) of any friends I know; and I played in fighting games tournaments in college. This is a genre of competitive games where millisecond-reflexes can determine the outcome of the game. (of course, I was a low tier tournament player and there are tons of world class players way better and faster than me) I'd say my takeaway is that sure, maybe that kind of "screen training" helps with reflexes and attention, but you don't have to start that early. If you start at 5 years old instead of 1 year old, you might just get as much of the benefits, without the down sides of vision problems etc. that comes with having screen time too early.

dcolkitt 6y ago

One important thing to keep in mind with any headline like this: twin studies have consistently shown that family environment contributes a negligible component to the cross-sectional variation of long-term adult outcomes. Consider any sort of child-rearing decision. In this case letting your toddler use an iPad or not. Is it within the realm of normal variation you'd find between families? In this case, yes: some families let kids have a lot of screen time, and some families strictly limit screen time. Well then, it almost certainly will have essentially zero impact on long-term adult outcomes. It may have a transitory short-term impact. Analogously, reading to kids may lead to learning to read at an earlier age. But twin studies tell us that by adulthood, the effect regresses to the mean. I.e. reading to kids a lot won't give them higher reading comprehension when they grow up.