Mobile Device Use for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Young children are frequently engaged or soothed by mobile devices, although it is unknown whether this practice affects a child’s development. Objectives: To investigate the long-term, reciprocal relationships between young children’s executive functioning (EF) and emotional reactivity and the frequency that parents report utilizing mobile devices to soothe them. Methods: This prospective study used a convenience sample of English-speaking parents with typically developing children between the ages of 3 and 6. The study was carried out from August 2022 to January 2023. Parents regularly use mobile devices to comfort upset children (3-point Likert scale). Checklist for Adolescent Behavior At each wave, the child’s emotional reactivity was assessed using the Emotional Reactivity Subscale, and executive function (EF) was assessed using the Behavior Rating Inventory (BRI) of Executive Function-Preschool Version Global Executive Composite. The Child Behavior Questionnaire-Very Short Form surgency score and median split were used to generate structural equation models to examine the cross-lagged associations between the use of calming tools, EF, and emotional reactivity. Results: The crude OR for frequent users compared to non-regular users among 500 eligible children was 1.85 (95% CI [1.252.74], p =.002) for regular users (Crude model in Table 5). For regular users, the IPTW-OR for executive functioning was 1.82 (95% CI [1.152.87], p =.009). In contrast to higher emotional reactivity, increased device use for calming among boys was not significantly correlated with higher emotional reactivity (r [standardized regression coefficient] = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.30). The use of calming devices was linked to increased emotional reactivity in children with high temperamental surgency, whereas higher emotional reactivity was linked to increased calming device use. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that the frequent use of mobile devices for calming young children may displace their opportunities for learning emotion-regulation strategies over time; therefore, pediatric health care professionals may wish to encourage alternate calming approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".