5 ms·

I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century when televisions came about. It

I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century when televisions came about. It really makes me doubt the entire premise as screens have not changed since then. It just seems like another unfounded moral panic like when people blamed books, newspapers, or radio for youth misbehavior. Every generation has it's own. It's weird that we've gone back to the 1940s for the 2020s moral panic. Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope does about how my day will go. It's amazing this passed JAMA's review to be published.

georgeburdell 4y ago
Screens are far more interactive now. Perhaps that’s a component as well
- the_only_law 4y ago
  I think this might be something to it. I’ve noticed parallels between the stereotypical “kid glued to their phone” and “elderly person glued to slot machine at the casino”. Both of those are more interactive that TV.
- miriam_catira 4y ago
  This paper is talking about screen use by infants - within the first year of life. Screen interaction can not be the major problem here, it's much more likely to be a lack of interaction with other humans. That's key to infant development, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lack of stimulus from carers would lead to issues later.
  - martinjacobd 4y ago
    I'm not sure why it would be true that screen time is not a problem for a <1yr old. At about 6-9 months (maybe before) they are able to interact with the screen, and they interact much more with it if it has bright colors and responds to their touch. We would occasionally allow our eldest to use the phone around this age and she would become despondent if it was taken away. So we decided never to do that again. Of course, a lack of interaction with humans could be a factor too but in our case we were literally playing with it alongside her and she would still get upset if it was taken away.
    - miriam_catira 4y ago
      Not saying that it wouldn't be an issue at older ages as well, since for millenia children learned by watching the other people around them and learning from them, not from screens. That's my essential point - that's utterly essential for infants, even more at that age than later. Not that suddenly it becomes ok! But if we want to keep the discussion on topic, we should talk about the age group being studied. Beyond that, we want to have a different study. (edit, grammar because it's really too early in the morning for writing)
      - martinjacobd 4y ago
        Ah apologies. In your first post I read "can not" as "cannot"
- medler 4y ago
  This study was pretty much only about TV time. It took place before handheld devices were ubiquitous in Singapore, where the subjects live
  - cynthedesign 4y ago
    Very important point for the discussion
supergeek133 4y ago
More people have access to screens now, and (anecdotally) parents were much more careful about screen time in the early 80s/90s.
cantSpellSober 4y ago
> Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope What? From TFA: > EEG data over the midfrontal and parietal regions have been used to delineate potential neural mechanisms of attention and executive function https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054717718263 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054717718263 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95848-9_9 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95848-9_... They didn't just look at EEG results either > Objective executive function assessments were administered using the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, second edition (NEPSY-II) ...whereas there are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes. Any specific criticisms besides the generic "moral panic" that gets posted on every article like this?
stevenwoo 4y ago
They compared children starting at 12-18 months and ending at 9 years of age. This study would have been unreasonable as far as I understand it until screens got small enough to put in a crib or only include parents who hold their child in their lap while watching television or have a television adjacent to a crib.
- scott00 4y ago
  99% of kids can sit without support at 9.2 months.[0] 97% can crawl by 12 months.[0] Kids in the 12-18 month range don't stay in the crib or a lap all day. [0] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/child-growth-standards/indicators/motor-development-milestones/mm_percentiles_table.pdf?sfvrsn=81f3b60b_5 https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/c...
CadmiumYellow 4y ago
"screens have not changed since then" What? They've changed massively. The displays are different sizes, they're made of different materials, they're more portable, they're more interactive, the colors are brighter, the resolution is better. Our current generation of screens are ubiquitous in a way that TV was not, and they are qualitatively different. Surely the effect on our brains could be different. Not saying that this particular study is great but I don't understand how anyone can dismiss this line of thinking as nothing more than the same moral panic Socrates once had about books, or whatever. Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?
- superkuh 4y ago
  >Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets? I have never owned a smart phone or tablet. I use a dumb phone (Nokia 6030) and desktop (or laptop) computers. Smartphones and tablets are terrible computers, not because they have magic screen powers to influence your brain but because they have limited volume for heat dissipation/energy storage, limited network capability due to radio power constraints and random round trip time, terrible IO, locked down software, and generally are ankle bracelet like tracking devices with no way to remove the battery.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    So you never owned a smartphone or tablet but think they're "terrible computers"? That sounds like an uninformed opinion. Power dissipation sucks on PCs because they're PCs using x86 basically.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      And, like, they make ARM / RISC laptops. Lotta articles about them recently, too.
  - CadmiumYellow 4y ago
    It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one. The interactivity, the high quality and brightly colored displays, the touch feedback and notifications...these devices are like brain candy. They're extremely pleasurable to use and if you get used to using them often it's very hard to pull yourself away from them.
1970-01-01 4y ago
Both the use-case and the physical screen have changed so much since 1930s television broadcasts it makes me wonder if you drive a dinosaur to work.
scott00 4y ago
There was certainly worry about this earlier, though I don't know if there was any research done. My parents limited screen time when I was growing up (born 1985). I do think there's been a substantial change in child-targeted media over the years. In the days of broadcast only tv, you couldn't turn the tv on at any time of day and expect to find children's programming. The advent of cable and home video players changed that, but not everybody had cable and not everybody chose to buy kids show recordings. Parents could make those decisions occaisionally and then be stuck with them, rather than having to fight a continuous battle of self-control. Other big changes occurred with the rise of children's programming on youtube and the invention of smartphones. Basically in less than 100 years we've gone from no childrens screen media exising at all to an unlimited quantity available for free in every adult's pocket 24 hours a day.
nescioquid 4y ago
Cultural attitudes and norms have changed greatly. There would generally be one television in the house and deciding which station to watch was often not an individual decision. People would also think there was something wrong with you if you spent too much time watching television. Even into the late '90s, I recall people being disgusted and scandalized at rumors that so-and-so spends all day playing computer games. Now that everyone has their own personalized screen wherever they go, attitudes are somewhat different.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
roundandround 4y ago
> I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century I wonder why I was required to sit 1.5 meters away from the screen a generation after TV entered the home. Do modern kids sit this far away from tablets?

georgeburdell 4y ago

Screens are far more interactive now. Perhaps that’s a component as well

the_only_law 4y ago
I think this might be something to it. I’ve noticed parallels between the stereotypical “kid glued to their phone” and “elderly person glued to slot machine at the casino”. Both of those are more interactive that TV.
miriam_catira 4y ago
This paper is talking about screen use by infants - within the first year of life. Screen interaction can not be the major problem here, it's much more likely to be a lack of interaction with other humans. That's key to infant development, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lack of stimulus from carers would lead to issues later.
- martinjacobd 4y ago
  I'm not sure why it would be true that screen time is not a problem for a <1yr old. At about 6-9 months (maybe before) they are able to interact with the screen, and they interact much more with it if it has bright colors and responds to their touch. We would occasionally allow our eldest to use the phone around this age and she would become despondent if it was taken away. So we decided never to do that again. Of course, a lack of interaction with humans could be a factor too but in our case we were literally playing with it alongside her and she would still get upset if it was taken away.
  - miriam_catira 4y ago
    Not saying that it wouldn't be an issue at older ages as well, since for millenia children learned by watching the other people around them and learning from them, not from screens. That's my essential point - that's utterly essential for infants, even more at that age than later. Not that suddenly it becomes ok! But if we want to keep the discussion on topic, we should talk about the age group being studied. Beyond that, we want to have a different study. (edit, grammar because it's really too early in the morning for writing)
    - martinjacobd 4y ago
      Ah apologies. In your first post I read "can not" as "cannot"
medler 4y ago
This study was pretty much only about TV time. It took place before handheld devices were ubiquitous in Singapore, where the subjects live
- cynthedesign 4y ago
  Very important point for the discussion

supergeek133 4y ago

More people have access to screens now, and (anecdotally) parents were much more careful about screen time in the early 80s/90s.

cantSpellSober 4y ago

> Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope What? From TFA: > EEG data over the midfrontal and parietal regions have been used to delineate potential neural mechanisms of attention and executive function https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054717718263 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054717718263 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95848-9_9 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95848-9_... They didn't just look at EEG results either > Objective executive function assessments were administered using the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, second edition (NEPSY-II) ...whereas there are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes. Any specific criticisms besides the generic "moral panic" that gets posted on every article like this?

stevenwoo 4y ago

They compared children starting at 12-18 months and ending at 9 years of age. This study would have been unreasonable as far as I understand it until screens got small enough to put in a crib or only include parents who hold their child in their lap while watching television or have a television adjacent to a crib.

scott00 4y ago
99% of kids can sit without support at 9.2 months.[0] 97% can crawl by 12 months.[0] Kids in the 12-18 month range don't stay in the crib or a lap all day. [0] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/child-growth-standards/indicators/motor-development-milestones/mm_percentiles_table.pdf?sfvrsn=81f3b60b_5 https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/c...

CadmiumYellow 4y ago

"screens have not changed since then" What? They've changed massively. The displays are different sizes, they're made of different materials, they're more portable, they're more interactive, the colors are brighter, the resolution is better. Our current generation of screens are ubiquitous in a way that TV was not, and they are qualitatively different. Surely the effect on our brains could be different. Not saying that this particular study is great but I don't understand how anyone can dismiss this line of thinking as nothing more than the same moral panic Socrates once had about books, or whatever. Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?

superkuh 4y ago
>Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets? I have never owned a smart phone or tablet. I use a dumb phone (Nokia 6030) and desktop (or laptop) computers. Smartphones and tablets are terrible computers, not because they have magic screen powers to influence your brain but because they have limited volume for heat dissipation/energy storage, limited network capability due to radio power constraints and random round trip time, terrible IO, locked down software, and generally are ankle bracelet like tracking devices with no way to remove the battery.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  So you never owned a smartphone or tablet but think they're "terrible computers"? That sounds like an uninformed opinion. Power dissipation sucks on PCs because they're PCs using x86 basically.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    And, like, they make ARM / RISC laptops. Lotta articles about them recently, too.
- CadmiumYellow 4y ago
  It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one. The interactivity, the high quality and brightly colored displays, the touch feedback and notifications...these devices are like brain candy. They're extremely pleasurable to use and if you get used to using them often it's very hard to pull yourself away from them.

1970-01-01 4y ago

Both the use-case and the physical screen have changed so much since 1930s television broadcasts it makes me wonder if you drive a dinosaur to work.

scott00 4y ago

There was certainly worry about this earlier, though I don't know if there was any research done. My parents limited screen time when I was growing up (born 1985). I do think there's been a substantial change in child-targeted media over the years. In the days of broadcast only tv, you couldn't turn the tv on at any time of day and expect to find children's programming. The advent of cable and home video players changed that, but not everybody had cable and not everybody chose to buy kids show recordings. Parents could make those decisions occaisionally and then be stuck with them, rather than having to fight a continuous battle of self-control. Other big changes occurred with the rise of children's programming on youtube and the invention of smartphones. Basically in less than 100 years we've gone from no childrens screen media exising at all to an unlimited quantity available for free in every adult's pocket 24 hours a day.

nescioquid 4y ago

Cultural attitudes and norms have changed greatly. There would generally be one television in the house and deciding which station to watch was often not an individual decision. People would also think there was something wrong with you if you spent too much time watching television. Even into the late '90s, I recall people being disgusted and scandalized at rumors that so-and-so spends all day playing computer games. Now that everyone has their own personalized screen wherever they go, attitudes are somewhat different.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

roundandround 4y ago

> I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century I wonder why I was required to sit 1.5 meters away from the screen a generation after TV entered the home. Do modern kids sit this far away from tablets?