The Screen


When I spoke recently to Faye Mishna about online bullying, she showed me, as an aside, a video of an iPad-savvy one-year-old who can’t work out why magazine images don’t scroll and zoom at the touch of a finger.

The video concludes with the line, “For my 1 year old daughter, a magazine is an iPad that does not work. It will remain so for her whole life. Steve Jobs has coded a part of her OS.”

Way to freak me out, Internet.

My first child just celebrated his first birthday and number two is due to touch down in November. Naturally, I’m in a perpetual tizz about the ubiquity of glowing rectangles. TVs are everywhere – restaurants, doctors’ waiting rooms, shopping malls, highway billboards. Not to mention my own collection of touch-sensitive devices courtesy of Jobs.

So far, we’ve been good about keeping our devices switched off when the boy is awake, but the New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum, suggests that might all change soon.

“As a new parent, I dutifully followed the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines—no TV until two,” she wrote recently. “I did so in the manner of other parents I knew, which is to say with my first child. By 2007, when I was juggling a two-year-old and a newborn, a little TV watching in the pre-early morning seemed pretty appealing.”

Way to freak me out, legacy media.

Am I crazy to worry that glowing screens are effectively the zombie apocalypse, eating my kids’ brains and leaving them obese, sleepless, aggressive and unable to concentrate on one thing for more than a few minutes?

I asked Donna Kotsopoulos, a math educator and researcher at Wilfrid Laurier University. She pointed me to those same recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on media use by children under two years (briefly, they strongly discourage television for kids that age, but don’t go so far as to forbid it).

That’s TV. What about tablets? On one hand, they seem better because the user is active rather than passive. On the other, they can be more immersive. Intuitively, a tablet feels as though it more thoroughly cuts a child (or adult, for that matter) off from the world.
There is no shortage of videos featuring kids and iPads.

I can watch them endlessly, and have such a wide range of personal reactions (Cute! Terrifying! Fun! Don’t hurt your brain! Ten years from now, you will dominate me technologically!) that I ultimately want to seek refuge in data. As it happens, Kotsopoulos is part of a research project aimed at finding out more about the effects of mobile devices on young brains.

“We are in the middle of a study right now with tablets – funded through the Ontario Centres for Excellence,” she told me. “The one we are investigating is the VINCI . The research is rather grey on the issue because most of the [current] research or policy statements do not consider mobile devices.”

Kotsopoulos and her colleague Joanne Lee run a program called LittleCounters. In these workshops, they use interactive whiteboards but they will wait to see the results of more research before they consider using tablets.This puts my mind at greater ease, as this fall, I’m planning to participate in one of these workshops with my son, and report back here. I will also update any new research results related to kids and mobile devices.

Way to not freak me out, world of university research.

Tagged: Community, Culture, Health, Technology

Share: Print

Leave Comments

  1. Egrech

    New research (Early childhood television viewing predicts explosive leg strength and waist circumference by middle childhood
    Caroline Fitzpatrick, Linda S Pagani and Tracie A Barnett
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (in press)) indicates that high levels of TV during childhood can contribute to weight later on in life – can’t imagine that sitting in-front of a tablet would be much different.  In addition, perhaps the question to ask is if those children who are computer literate are computer intelligent.  I teach at university and many of my students have no idea who to use the internet to research issues – but they know how to text at an unbelievable number of words (shortened of course!) per minute.  Ask them to research and issue and they struggle (and quote Wikipedia.)  Do we need to introduce infants to tablets – or is it another way that we can allow ourselves, as parents, to do what we want to do while our children are otherwise occupied – oh – and “safe”.

Blog Posts

Ana Sanchez

Cold truths from the ...

Patchen Barss | August 19, 2014

At the Research Matters Curiosity Shop people ask questions they’d like Ontario university researchers to answer. Recently, a visitor to the Shop asked: “Can we ever cure the common cold?” Research Matters tracked down Ana Sanchez, an infectious disease expert and instructor of medical microbiology at Brock University to get some answers. Spoiler alert: It does not sound as though the facial tissue and cough medicine industries are in any danger. Research Matters:    Why is it so hard to find a cure for the common cold?   Ana Sanchez:    The first reason is because the disease is not caused by a single pathogen. There are more than 100 types of rhinoviruses that cause the symptoms we have come to know as the common cold. Then we have adenoviruses, coronaviruses and other groups that cause colds as well. Within each group, many variations can occur, providing different qualities to viruses, to which we must adapt and so our immune system can react appropriately . It would be a challenge to find a drug or vaccine that targets all of them. So, the diversity of the pathogens is, is the first challenge. RM:     What else? AS: Another challenge is that these viruses change a lot. They mutate. So even if we were to create a treatment it would be like a moving target.  It would be like the influenza, where we have to make new vaccines all the time. Unless scientist find a special part of the virus molecule; a molecule that is common to an entire group and does not change much, the challenge will remain. RM: Are viruses more challenging to treat than bacterial infections? AS: For the longest time we were not able to create drugs to treat viral infections because scientists couldn’t identify a particular physiological aspect of a virus they could target. Bacteria are cells – living organisms with active metabolisms. They have membranes, cytoplasms, and nuclei we could decipher. We understand them better, which makes them easier to fight. With viruses, we now know we’re not targeting live cells. Viruses are actually not “alive” although they carry a code for life. They don’t replicate by themselves, they don’t have metabolism.  They are the ultimate parasites and need to colonize a cell to do all that, right?  So even when we may have drugs to inactivate viruses, because they live inside our cells, many time we end up damaging our own cells as well. As biotechnology advances, however, scientist are more able to conceive drugs or treatments to fight viruses off without causing too much damage to the patient. Now, not all viral infections are difficult to deal with. Some viruses, like hepatitis B are very stable, so it was possible to create a vaccine you can trust. It depends on the virus. RM: Can scientists learn anything from the human immune system about curing colds? AS: They could, but that’s really beside the fact. We get an infection, and our body successfully deals with it within a few days. We mount a strong cellular and antibody response and end up winning the battle. But then we get another virus and another. There’s no end to the diversity of cold viruses. RM: So, what’s the long-term prognosis for a cure? AS: Curing the common cold is a terrible challenge. And remember that it is not really a severe disease. For most people, it is a nuisance. There’s a lot of people with the illness, but it’s not like influenza or other respiratory diseases that tend to be more serious. And even if there was a vaccine that worked for some cold viruses, it’s going to be hard to convince people that the vaccine works because they will get another cold from another virus and think, ‘Well this vaccine didn’t work well.’ RM: Is this just a never-ending battle, then? AS: Each time there is a medical advance in virology – like the way we’re starting to better control HIV – we think we’re winning the battle against infectious agents. We have better drugs and people are living longer.  Then, boom, there’s something else. Take Ebola. In the mid-1970s, Ebola became an issue for a period of time, and then we heard nothing for years. We thought maybe it was just a fluke. And then just comes back. Of course, living a healthy life with good nutrition and good rest will improve your immune system to fight pathogens. And fighting pathogens (most of the time successfully) is something that we humans have been doing forever… We are born with an immune system exactly because we need to fight all these pathogens.  It’s there for a reason. But the other side is also always going to be there.
Editorial calendar

Research Matters blog: A ...

Patchen Barss | August 18, 2014

Greetings. Patchen Barss here, Managing Editor of the Research Matters website and blog. We've been at this for a couple of years now, and I thought it might be time to say hello, and thank you for reading. read more »

Extracting Solutions – Mining in ...

Badri Murali | August 13, 2014

  It’s not every day that you get to go into a mine (unless you’re a miner of course). So when we had the chance to go to Dynamic Earth in Sudbury, Ont., we couldn’t say no to that! read more »

Wearable Technology: The MeU

Simon Buckley - Curiosity Crew | July 2, 2014

Technology is integrating itself into every aspect of our lives. Soon, the very clothes we wear will be both functional and fashionable. read more »
Cloud City

Cloud cities

Carleton University Staff | June 30, 2014

Carleton Prof. Shikharesh Majumdar in the Faculty of Engineering and Design has received funding for a new cloud-based platform that will help researchers build smart facilities and smart cities. read more »
More Blogs »

Featured Events

Royal Ontario Museum

May 9, 2013 | Toronto

Royal Ontario Museum, Bronfman Hall Toronto, Ontario Thursday May 9, 2013 6:30pm to 9:00pm This free event is part of a province-wide discussion series featuring researchers from Ontario’s universities. Moderated by Globe and Mail science correspondent Ivan Semeniuk

View More Events »