Associations between screen time and cognitive development in preschoolers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To examine the cross-sectional associations between screen time and cognitive development in preschoolers. Methods: Participants were 97 preschoolers (36 to 60 months) in Alberta and Ontario, Canada in the supporting Healthy physical AcTive Childcare setting (HATCH) study. The time that children spent watching television, videos or DVDs (television time) or playing video or computer games (video game time) on a television, computer, or portable device was assessed using a parental questionnaire. Television time and video game time were summed to calculate total screen time. Adherence to the screen time recommendation (≤1 hour/day) of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines was calculated. Expressive vocabulary and working memory were assessed using the Early Years Toolbox. Due to the distribution of working memory, it was categorized as a binary variable based on the median score. The associations between screen time and cognitive development were examined using mixed models (expressive vocabulary) or generalized mixed models (working memory). Results: Screen time was not associated with expressive vocabulary. Preschoolers who had higher total screen time were less likely to have better working memory (OR=0.52; 95%CI:0.31, 0.88), despite the null associations for television time (P=0.155) and video game time (P=0.079). Preschoolers who met the screen time recommendation were more likely to have higher working memory capacity (OR=3.48; 95%CI:1.06, 11.47), compared to those who did not meet the recommendation. Conclusion: Limiting total screen time to no more than one hour per day may facilitate working memory development in preschoolers. Screen time may be unrelated to expressive language development in this age group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it