MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations Between Infant Screen Use, Electroencephalography Markers, and Cognitive Outcomes

2023· article· en· W4318484698 on OpenAlexaff
Evelyn Law, Meredith Han, Zhuoyuan Lai, Shuping Lim, Zi Yan Ong, Valerie Y. Ng, Laurel J. Gabard‐Durnam, Carol L. Wilkinson, April R. Levin, Anne Rifkin‐Graboi, Lourdes Mary Daniel, Peter D. Gluckman, Yap Seng Chong, Michael J. Meaney, Charles A. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineElectroencephalographyCognitionPediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Research evidence is mounting for the association between infant screen use and negative cognitive outcomes related to attention and executive functions. The nature, timing, and persistence of screen time exposure on neural functions are currently unknown. Electroencephalography (EEG) permits elucidation of the neural correlates associated with cognitive impairments. Objective: To examine the associations between infant screen time, EEG markers, and school-age cognitive outcomes using mediation analysis with structural equation modeling. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective maternal-child dyad cohort study included participants from the population-based study Growing Up in Singapore Toward Healthy Outcomes (GUSTO). Pregnant mothers were enrolled in their first trimester from June 2009 through December 2010. A subset of children who completed neurodevelopmental visits at ages 12 months and 9 years had EEG performed at age 18 months. Data were reported from 3 time points at ages 12 months, 18 months, and 9 years. Mediation analyses were used to investigate how neural correlates were involved in the paths from infant screen time to the latent construct of attention and executive functioning. Data for this study were collected from November 2010 to March 2020 and were analyzed between October 2021 and May 2022. Exposures: Parent-reported screen time at age 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Power spectral density from EEG was collected at age 18 months. Child attention and executive functions were measured with teacher-reported questionnaires and objective laboratory-based tasks at age 9 years. Results: In this sample of 437 children, the mean (SD) age at follow-up was 8.84 (0.07) years, and 227 children (51.9%) were male. The mean (SD) amount of daily screen time at age 12 months was 2.01 (1.86) hours. Screen time at age 12 months contributed to multiple 9-year attention and executive functioning measures (η2, 0.03-0.16; Cohen d, 0.35-0.87). A subset of 157 children had EEG performed at age 18 months; EEG relative theta power and theta/beta ratio at the frontocentral and parietal regions showed a graded correlation with 12-month screen use (r = 0.35-0.37). In the structural equation model accounting for household income, frontocentral and parietal theta/beta ratios partially mediated the association between infant screen time and executive functioning at school age (exposure-mediator β, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.59; mediator-outcome β, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.11), forming an indirect path that accounted for 39.4% of the association. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, infant screen use was associated with altered cortical EEG activity before age 2 years; the identified EEG markers mediated the association between infant screen time and executive functions. Further efforts are urgently needed to distinguish the direct association of infant screen use compared with family factors that predispose early screen use on executive function impairments.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207