Screen time has limited effects on toddlers' development: study

It ma have an effect on their mental development but it would definitely have an effect on their physical development.

Toddlers need to move about not watch screens, I find the parents who allow this to be immature and regressive.

Their proxies for 'growth and development' seem a bit arbitrary and facile. Was it sponsored by Sony and Nintendo?

The findings are reassuring but they need to be taken into the proper context, a single report does not prove a conclusion, even if the observations are well designed and conducted, so it is still justified to try and keep screen time as sporadic and limited as possible until the full extent of their effects on development are well understood.

Still, this can bring a lot of peace of mind to parents in situations where they can't provide the best environment for their children, the option of being together with the children while they are looking at the screen as a compromise to limit the possible damage could be a much more realistic option for many.

@virusrex

100%

And parents need to put up on the wall: it's the book time, stupid!

Parents who stick a screen in front of their kids or the other way around are doing it because they LACK the ability to entertain and play with their kids, it's no different than giving kids to nurseries to take care of them while not even working by lying and saying they have to go to work.

Total BS.

some factors…

one. Using digital devises is a way for primary caregivers to give them “break time”, depriving infants of important bonding and affection time.

two. The applications and videos contain subliminal messaging which are used for propaganda and advertising purposes as documented by many independent researchers, media and NGOs.

third. Visual acuity is severely diminished, and if undiagnosed can lead to impediment of education in later years due to constrictions on understanding reading, writing and even effecting sports.

forth. Almost all university studying need funding. It is not hard to guess which funding goes to study promoting the infant financial market for software and hardware.

fifth. If infants are “brainwashed” to except using digital media from an early developmental age, it will become the social and life norm. That is why leading psychologists are calling for limits on digital and online and gaming limits on children.

there is more, but it is a public holiday so don’t want to bore you, unless you are a parent.

All research is to be welcomed - but many other studies have reached other conclusions.

One would be naive to insist this one is definitive.

In addition the over-use of screens by toddlers doesn't miraculously stop at age 4 or 5. The pattern and habits once set, probably does and will continue throughout their infancy and childhood.

It's far too early to determine the impact of hours of close-in daily screen time spread over say the first 15 years of important growth and development.

Much more time and longer studies are needed.

I'd much rather my kids playing outside if possible or doing more tactile, creative, physically interactive activities for that same 1+ hours / day.

one. Using digital devises is a way for primary caregivers to give them “break time”, depriving infants of important bonding and affection time.

In a society where parents are encouraged to put their babies and toddlers into childcare nine hours a day, five days a week, and go to work, I don't think you're allowed to talk about bonding any more. If you do, there are far worse things than stay at home moms sitting their kid in front of the telly for an hour. The traditional time and reason to do this, at 4pm when NHK shows "Okaasan to Issho" or whatever the Wanwan and U tan show is called, is for the mother to get a chance to cook dinner. The "primary caregiver" has "break time" to do another domestic chore. Not put their feet up and do some selfish thing while neglecting the kid.

My teenage son is a very heavy gamer but also does loads of outdoor stuff, camping most weeks with his gamer mates. He finds time to do both by not studying. He belongs to a school sports club, but doesn't go to every practice, which frees up more time. Its bad for anyone of any age to be sedentry, but the main reason teenagers do it in Japan is their parents forcing them to memorize facts for exams. The main reason adults do it is because that's their job that pays the bills.

"Screen Time" has been happening since the 1960s. Nothing new.

How is this any different than parents 30 years ago plopping their kids in front of the tv while cooking dinner? Nothing has changed. Only difference is that you couldn’t bring your tv outside the house and now with phones and tablets, lazy parents can be even lazier.

Homer Simpson: “Then we figured out we could park them in front of the TV. That’s how I was raised, and I turned out TV.”

The findings are reassuring but they need to be taken into the proper context, a single report does not prove a conclusion,

But it does prove a conclusion, as per the first sentence in the article:

*Spending an hour or more in front of digital devices each day has a more limited effect on 2-year-olds' growth and development than previously thought, *a recent study by Japanese researchers has shown,

 so it is still justified to try and keep screen time as sporadic and limited as possible until the full extent of their effects on development are well understood.

The effects are well understood according to the study published on the website of JAMA Pediatrics, a monthly journal of the American Medical Association.

But it does prove a conclusion, as per the first sentence in the article:

No, it does not, the data apparently shows this, but it is not a proven conclusion, the authors of the article are not making that claim. They recognize their study can be improved and that further work can even contradict what they found.

The effects are well understood according to the study published on the website of JAMA Pediatrics, a monthly journal of the American Medical Association.

Then why don't you provide a source where this is said? specifically that the "full extent of their effects on development are well understood" as you quoted? is it because you are again making baseless claims that are not actually supported by the appeals to authority you make?

Wait, does this mean that common sense in parenting works?

Spending an hour or more in front of digital devices

And who gives tablets etc. to toddlers? What the heck! This is beyond ridiculous.

LoveJapanMar. 21  10:38 am JST

Was this funded by Nintendo or NHK?!

No it was funded by the department of education and the authors deleted there is no conflict of interest. So the research passes the sniff test in those terms. But initially I had the same thoughts.

finally richToday  10:15 am JST

And who gives tablets etc. to toddlers? What the heck! This is beyond ridiculous.

Good point.

Luckily the experts in the report concluded that the effects are limited.

Luckily the experts in the report concluded that the effects are limited.

There is no luck involved in the research, and the criticism is the same, this is only one report, which makes the observed results not the same as a done conclusion, this is related to the mistake the other account keeps repeating. The effects of screen time have not been fully characterized, which means any effect (including the mitigating factors found in this specific research) may not be reproducible or as important as they appear here.

For that further research is needed, until a proper conclusion product of different reports with their own strengths and weaknesses are evaluated together, that is the scientific method.

Don’t worry too much. I am very optimistic, that the natural limit of 24 hours screen time in one day won’t be exceeded so very soon.

JT - if the story relates to more than one toddler, the headline should have the apostrophe after the "s" in toddler's.

Moderator: Thanks for pointing that out. It has been corrected.

GaijinjlandMar. 21  01:30 pm JST

How is this any different than parents 30 years ago plopping their kids in front of the tv while cooking dinner? Nothing has changed. Only difference is that you couldn’t bring your tv outside the house and now with phones and tablets, lazy parents can be even lazier.

True, and the study, using globally accepted scientific method practices concluded that there are limited effects on kids spending time in front of digital devices.

True, and the study, using globally accepted scientific method practices concluded that there are limited effects on kids spending time in front of digital devices.

The authors of the study say something very different in their conclusions.

Higher screen time at age 2 years was directly associated with poorer communication at age 4 years. It was also associated with daily living skills, but frequency of outdoor play at age 2 years 8 months alleviated it, suggesting outdoor play mitigated the association between higher screen time and suboptimal neurodevelopment. Future research should specify the nature of the associations and intervention measures, enabling targeted interventions that reduce the potential risk in screen time.

True, and the study, using globally accepted scientific method practices concluded that there are limited effects on kids spending time in front of digital devices.

True and true.

The authors of the study say something very different in their conclusions.

No, in fact, the authors of the study say exactly:

Screen time has limited effects on toddlers' development

No need to even read the article. Just look at the title.

True and true.

As proved by the completely different conclusions made by the authors both things are still false

No, in fact, the authors of the study say exactly:

Screen time has limited effects on toddlers' development

The quote from the authors that come from the primary sourse is still there, trying to refute what they do say (that their study only suggest something, and that they consider necessary to confirm things with further study) do not work even if both accounts keep repeating the same thing.

What evidence can you present that the authors of the study are wrong? they explicitly contradict your (not their) claim.