Screen time, brain network development and socio-emotional competence in childhood: moderation of associations by parent–child reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Screen time in infancy is linked to changes in social-emotional development but the pathway underlying this association remains unknown. We aim to provide mechanistic insights into this association using brain network topology and to examine the potential role of parent–child reading in mitigating the effects of screen time. Methods We examined the association of screen time on brain network topology using linear regression analysis and tested if the network topology mediated the association between screen time and later socio-emotional competence. Lastly, we tested if parent–child reading time was a moderator of the link between screen time and brain network topology. Results Infant screen time was significantly associated with the emotion processing-cognitive control network integration (p = 0.005). This network integration also significantly mediated the association between screen time and both measures of socio-emotional competence (BRIEF-2 Emotion Regulation Index, p = 0.04; SEARS total score, p = 0.04). Parent–child reading time significantly moderated the association between screen time and emotion processing-cognitive control network integration (β = −0.640, p = 0.005). Conclusion Our study identified emotion processing-cognitive control network integration as a plausible biological pathway linking screen time in infancy and later socio-emotional competence. We also provided novel evidence for the role of parent–child reading in moderating the association between screen time and topological brain restructuring in early childhood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".