TV and Computer Time for Babies

Before you read ahead and become offended, please read the disclaimer. Also, the photos used are cute, but in no way related to the post.

A few years before having kids I was fortunate enough to attend a conference about how the brain learns. The presenters are neuro-scientists and it was for educators. Basically we spent 3 days looking at fMRI and PET scans to test educational theories. I loved it. Some of the research supported what educators already knew, for example, kids who can rhyme learn to read earlier than kids who can't rhyme, but can recognize their letters. The brain scans show that rhyming develops the same pathway in the brain that will later be used for reading. Recognizing letters is a type of symbolic recognition and is handled by a completely different part of the brain. It's nice when everyone can agree.

One of the big topics discussed was TV and computer time for babies/children/teens. When sharing this research I'm most often told they got it wrong. The brain scans were obviously lying because parents/educators have another idea. I have had people get offended that I'm saying what is best isn't what they did or are doing. They react like I'm accusing them of child abuse. It's crazy and why I started this post suggesting you read the disclaimer.

Multiple research groups across the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia have all taken on this topic and their results have all shown the same thing. They took babies and set them in front of a television with a baby video on the tv. The kids sat staring at the TV and when the video ended some sat still staring, but many cried and seemed to want more. The brain scans showed a different story. The babies couldn't seem to make any sense out of what they were seeing and the constantly changing images were actually killing off some of the connections in the brain. It was slowly causing minor brain damage. This was only noticeable when reading the brain scans, but every time a baby was watching TV the same thing happened. Those connections didn't seem to ever come back.

Next the research teams tested 5 and 6 year old kids. They watched age appropriate educational videos. Once again the kids sat staring at the TV and got upset when it was over. They asked to watch more. The brain scans this time were different. The kids were learning from the shows. They were developing new connections and reinforcing ones that already existed.

Obviously something had changed. Here's where the real fun begins. There were two different theories. 1 Something changes in the brain chemistry in the first few years that causes this. 2 The type or content of the videos causes the difference.

Some of the research groups started narrowing it down based on age. They tested toddlers (16-20 months old) and it was still damaging. They tested 3  year olds (35-37 months) and it was beneficial. They tested 2 year olds (23-25 months) and it was harmful. Are you excited to see when the change happens yet? This is how I know I'm a nerd - I was on the edge of my seat wanting to hear every bit of this information. They tested kids who were exactly 30 months old (2.5 years) and it was beneficial. This research takes months to complete and this is where the story ends for now. They are still trying to narrow it down and see when the flip seems to happen. I am looking forward to hearing the new research, but until then our kids won't see any TV until they are at least 2.5 years old.

The other type of research is even more fascinating. This testing first proved it doesn't matter the content with kids under 2 years old, it's always harmful. They then looked at the benefits from different types of shows and computer games for the older (3-7 year olds) groups. There were many shocking discoveries.

First, the pacing of the program is the most important factor. If you watch a show and count the number of scene changes you will get an idea of the pacing. The greater the number, the worse it is for children. The most beneficial shows were paced as in life. The child's walking pace if they were going from room to room changing their own scene is actually the ideal pace of scene changes on TV. Cool, right? So shows with pacing like Mr. Rodgers are much better than the pacing of Baby Einstein videos.

Second, the content of the program and its impact on the brain was not what I expected. Shows that were thought of as violent (Power Rangers) were compared to shows that were thought of as non-violent (Berenstain Bears). Kids were more likely to have the positive feeling part of their brains light up for the violent shows than for the non-violent. Researchers sat down and watched each of the shows noting everything negative and everything positive. For example, every time someone was called a negative name, teased, pushed as well as every time someone was complimented, teamwork was demonstrated, and a helping hand was offered. Turns out that the non-violent shows often spent 25 of the 30 minute video dealing with a problem, i.e. kids not getting along, and 5 minutes resolving the problem. They had very high negative scores and very small positive ones by the end. The violent video spent 25 minutes talking about teamwork, helping and only 5 minutes actually fighting. They had high numbers of positive and small numbers of negative. While adults had been watching these shows for years, no one expected this type of correlation. With the help of a brain scan suddenly the way researchers look at videos completely changed.

Third, the researchers focused on the interactive nature of the video and included computer time as well. This did prove what was expected - the more interactive the better. TV shows that got kids up and dancing or answering questions that were posed were much better than the shows that kids just sat and watched. Computer games were rated equal to interactive videos (not better) when controlled for the pacing and programing. Interestingly, pacing was always the most important factor with programing being second and interactiveness falling into the third place.

This research is still continuing to see what else matters and where it will fall on its impact on children's brains.

When we do let our kids have screen time when they are 2.5, we will consider these things when choosing what they can view. We are of course trying to be perfect parents, but honestly that was out the window when they were just a few minutes old. More realistically, we are trying not to screw the kids up when it's preventable. I'm sure a few years from now they will come out with research that says we did many things wrong, but we have to take what we know and make decisions based on that and when in doubt, just go with our gut instinct.