
More nurturing reading environment may stimulate brain development in children - prostoalex
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/health/child-brain-reading-books-wellness/index.html
======
klik99
I could talk about this for hours, but "screen time" is too vague - placing a
kid in front of a youtube autoplay stream is vastly different than playing a
word game on the iPad with their parents right next to them.

I've found low effort, high stimulus creates bad behaviour, which is obvious.
But specifically, it creates a low effort flow state, setting false
expectations about life in general, and parents should make sure to minimize
this kind of media.

However we found a few good apps, and both my kids knew the alphabet before 1
year old, and my 2 year old is drawing Chinese characters (he's spent 1/4th of
his life in China) thanks to good apps, and having parents present while using
them. And passive media isn't all bad, How Things Work and David Attenborough,
and anything space related has taught my kids a lot.

I wish more studies would not focus on "book time" vs "screen time", because
what's really important is interactivity, such as being present with your
child for them to bounce things off you, or apps that give small rewards for
high effort tasks, rather than large rewards for low effort tasks - it just so
happens that books are more conducive to this, but if you actually pay
attention to what your child is doing, screens can be a powerful tool.

That being said, it's really tough being a parent, and sometimes you just want
to put some high stimulus thing on the screen to get a break - in my
experience, it's only bad when that becomes a habit or norm.

~~~
rmolin88
>both my kids knew the alphabet before 1 year old, and my 2 year old is
drawing Chinese characters

I honestly find this hard to believe. Maybe you have one special kid that
knows the alphabet before one. But two??

The US Department of Education says [0] by age 3-4 start working simple
things, like I love you.

[0]:
[https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/reader/part9.html](https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/reader/part9.html)

~~~
klik99
It is true, though I'll give two minor concessions/clarifications:

My 2 year old is basically 3 - his birthday is in Feb, close enough that
calling him 2-year-old is bending the truth, but not technically breaking it
:)

The alphabet thing is totally true - Largely due to Endless Alphabet, which is
a rare really well designed learning app - but I will say that learning what
sounds go with what alphabet letters is a specific type of education that
really plays to the screen strengths and isn't as transferable to other types
of education. The fact that I don't have another example like that one to
demonstrate the power of educational apps shows that this might be exception
rather than the rule.

On Endless Alphabet, when you drag the letters around (something kids get
right away) it repeats the letter pronunciation again and again in different
ways, and it still cracks them up. Then we finish dragging them, you get
treated to a little funny animated video that are really well made. So they
could play with that for hours, and knew all the pronunciations from there,
and the order from the song (well the song is basically how I still know it).
We'd test them when we pass signs on the street/sidewalk, and they did
struggle, but both would get all the letters before they turned 1.

You wouldn't believe how badly most kids apps are made, even the big ones like
hooked on phonics. Things like supporting multi-touch are essential since they
don't have great motor skills, and not nailing that can be really confusing
and frustrating for a child, who tends to think everything is because they
can't do it, not because the app didn't implement it well. And the rest of the
"Endless X" apps teaching other skills (maths, music) don't work as well as
Endless Alphabet, I think it works exceedingly well for the specific
memorization task of matching sounds to icons.

~~~
siegecraft
Do you have any other app (or even linux/Windows/Mac software)
recommendations? There's just so much crap out there..

------
yokaze
Actually, the title claims something, what the study doesn't. It states: "More
nurturing home reading environment prior to kindergarten may stimulate brain
development supporting language and literacy skills, reinforcing the need for
further study."

It is an observational study, which tries to correct for various obvious
factors, but they cannot separate the environment, where more home reading is
happening from actual more home reading (vs screen time).

~~~
tgv
Worse: brain scans can't prove this kind of claim at all, so the title is
really yet another piece of lousy science journalism. The only support comes
from old-fashioned cognitive tests, and the effect was only found for
linguistic skills. So yeah.

~~~
klik99
If I had a dime for every pop science article that shows "good parts of the
brain light up in MIR machine for X" images... well I'd have a helluva lot of
dimes

~~~
chapium
Having a helluva lot of dimes would actually highlight a part of an MRI scan.

------
salmonellaeater
The article doesn't mention anything about what the researchers controlled
for. Some other explanations that fit the data:

1\. Parents who take good care of their children in other ways also tend to
read to their children (perhaps because they're conscientious and have read
other research that says reading helps brain development, so they read to
their kids). It's actually the "take good care of their children in other
ways" that makes the difference, and reading just correlates.

2\. There is a shared genetic factor between parent and child. Parents with
this factor are more likely to read to their children. Children with this
factor score better on literacy tests. Any factor that affects intelligence or
personality would fit the bill.

3\. Reading doesn't affect language skills, but they are instead caused by
other environmental or genetic factors. Children who have factors that lead to
good language ability enjoy hearing stories, and their caregivers adapt by
reading to them more. Children without those factors react poorly to being
read to, so their caregivers read to them less.

A randomized controlled trial would tell us much more about whether reading
actually causes any later outcomes.

~~~
jacobolus
There have been many studies about this. Listening to books read aloud pretty
convincingly causes accelerated language development, after controlling for
other factors.

[For example randomized interventions aimed at convincing parents to read
aloud to their kids more often have a positive impact on the kids.]

------
tomgp
Tangential: Reading to my children has been one of the unexpected joys of
raising them, the oldest is now ten and I still typically read to her for
30-45 minutes a night. It gives me a chance to revisit books I enjoyed decades
ago and compare her reactions to my own at that age and now and it gives us a
broad and deep shared world beyond the day-to-day (one of the biggest
arguments for reading "the classics" IMO is that it allows you to tap into a
longer and deeper cultural conversation than we typically have access to via
more contemporary cultural products).

~~~
annoyingnoob
My 10 year old reads about 30 minutes or so a day on her own, she loves it.
Though she isn't interested in too many classics so far. She has trained
herself to get tired from reading, it puts her to bed every night.

------
nottorp
Hmm I read it as "if you read/are being read to more, you're doing better at
reading". Am I wrong?

I do think the younger generation is shooting themselves in the foot with not
being able to assimilate information by reading any more (video tutorials take
10x the time to convey the same amount of information if you can actually read
efficiently), but this study seems to basically say that you're not proficient
at a skill you don't practice?

~~~
erikbye
> (video tutorials take 10x the time to convey the same amount of information
> if you can actually read efficiently

Many subjects are better suited to video and can be conveyed more efficiently
so. Especially complex UIs, in my experience. Learning to use and find my way
around Maya was way easier and quicker using video than text with images. I
definitely feel the same way about learning to do specific car
repairs/maintenance.

~~~
nottorp
Right, but some young uns need video tutorials to write code... not to work in
a visual medium like Maya.

~~~
the_af
Agreed. I never understood the videos for programming language courses at,
say, Coursera.

Written material is better and clearer. The slow speed of the videos drives me
mad. Instead of digesting the information and examples at your own pace, you
must watch as the teacher carefully enunciates his words and takes forever to
belabor a point you already understood.

But strangely enough, some people prefer video to actually reading a detailed,
step-by-step written tutorial. Go figure.

------
jMyles
I'm often concerned that studies that assess screen time (especially in
contrast to reading or other cognitively rich activities) don't seem (ever, so
far as I can tell) to assess two areas that seem important:

1) The distinction in content being delivered via a screen: ie, does watching
Mighty Pups result in measurably different brain activity or development than
Studio Ghibli films? Common sense suggests so, but why aren't these studies
assessing that?

2) The function of a parent or adult companion to help with understanding and
integration of the content - does watching media alone result in different
outcomes than watching with an attentive parent?

However, this study doesn't even seem to actually measure any aspect of screen
time at all - it just looked at differences between households that used "Get
ready to READ!", a particular reading curriculum which requires parents and
children to read together, vs those that didn't.

I think books and screen time are both important. Given the incredible ability
for parents to curate decades of incredible digital media, from series to TV
to classic video games, it seems crazy to me to refrain from substantial
collaboration with our kids in enjoying and reflecting on these media.

Now, sometimes parents end up using screen time as a way of babysitting, with
media that hasn't even been viewed by the parent, much less together with the
child. I admit that I myself have occasionally fallen into this form, but I
don't like it, and it's not what I'm talking about when I suggest that screen
time is an overall good thing.

But why aren't these studies measuring that difference?!

My 4-year-old gets a lot of screen time (and a lot of book time, and board
game time) and I think that's great. We play classic NES and SNES games, watch
age-appropriate (but socially meaningful) movies, and explore the internet
together to learn about his interests. Until a serious study (ideally much
larger than this one, with 70 participants) actually addresses the realities
of the media being delivered and the methodology and its delivery, I find it
hard to take seriously for making my own parenting decisions.

~~~
watwut
I don't like watching toddlers shows. It is maybe odd think to point out, but
most adult are indifferent at best and actively dislike them at worst.

I am also no sure what congnitive gain kid would have from me sitting there
and attentively watching Peppa the pig too.

~~~
jMyles
You don't have to watch Peppa Pig. And if you do, you can (the first time
through) curate episodes that are better (like the composting one) and just
not repeat the really stupid ones.

Old school Sesame Street is a lot of fun for adults. The early Zelda games are
great. Kiki, Ponyo, and Totoru are staples. I mean, like I said, this an
incredible wealth of content from the past few decades; don't dwell on Peppa.

~~~
watwut
It is still completely pointless. There is no reason to prevent kid to see an
episode of peppa the pig I personally like the least. It is not like the kid
would be harmed by seeing episode of peppa that I personally find stupid.

There are million things I would still like better then watching any of that.

And also, most importantly, the idea that parent needs to be glued to child
constantly and should do anything else any time is what I disagree with too.
Should you ignore kid all the time? No, it is neglect. Can the kid play alone
some times or watch peppa without parent? Absolutely yes.

~~~
jMyles
I mean, yeah sure. But consuming media for the first time without a parent?
Ideally, no, I think it's good to be with them the first time they see
something.

------
stefgodjibayo
Vilifying screen time isn't great either, are the negative effects coming from
actual screens or brightly-coloured games designed for dopamine hits? Is
reading on a screen functionally different from a book in terms of attention
span?

~~~
perfunctory
Apparently yes

"...Conclusion: Main findings show that students who read texts in print
scored _significantly_ better on the reading comprehension test than students
who read the texts digitally..."

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension)

~~~
sdan
I'm curious as to why. Would e-ink make a difference? What's there to learn
differently from screen to paper?

~~~
hutzlibu
The obvious difference to me is, that the e-ink screen is not flickering.
Every other screen flickers when it gets updated 60+ times a second. They say
it is too fast to notice for the eye, but I doubt that. Also a normal screen
is an active light source. E-ink is passive.

All in all, I can read for hours on a e-ink display, but my eyes hurt soon on
a normal screen. But az least they improved a lot compared from the old bulky
ones.

~~~
AlanYx
Contrast ratios likely play into this as well. I ran across some research a
while ago that found that a contrast ratio of about 8:1 is ideal for
readability. E-ink is pretty close to that optimum (usually around 10-15:1
these days). Whereas for conventional screens contrast ratios keep being
pushed higher and higher (1000:1 is pretty typical). While this is great for
video, it makes sense that at some point it becomes tiring for the eye when
viewing black text on a white background (imagine trying to focus on an object
superimposed against the sky on a blindingly bright summer day).

------
ljoshua
Direct link to the relevant study (PDF):

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apa.15124](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apa.15124)

------
hannob
From the first chapter: "We all know that's true, but now science can convince
us with startling images."

Like... the author doesn't even try to conceal confirmation bias.

------
sebringj
It seems there could be some correlation rather than cause as parent
attentiveness or nurturing behavior is more beneficial in general in terms of
lowering child stress and providing a feeling of being loved or taken care of.
A positive environment from that would result in a better situation for the
child's growth so it would be difficult to strip out the nurturing side of
things toward "screen time" vs. not, IMO.

------
scottious
As I was reading this I began to wonder if there were confounding factors
here.

The original study did mention controlling for age, gender, and income...
though I can't help but think that there can easily be other confounding
factors. Maybe parents who read to their kids altogether spent more time with
them and it's that kind of attachment that really had the benefits. Maybe it's
the simple act of holding your child that's giving them the benefits.

Also, whenever a study like this comes out I can't help but think of the
mechanism that could be causing this. Why would reading to a child have
substantial more benefits than screen time? What if the screen time were a
reading simulation app? What if you read a book to your child that happened to
be on an iPad? What if you held the child and showed them a reading simulation
app without actually reading to them yourself?

Some part of me doesn't think it's as simple as "screen bad, book good"

------
annoyingnoob
I didn't like how the article bifurcates screen time and reading - as if kids
only get one or the other. Where are the scans of kids that do both screen
time and reading?

I have 3 kids, we read to all of them from birth. They all read every night.
Two of my kids also love time on the iPad/devices - though we limit them to 2
hours per day total after lots of fights about when to put the devices down.
All of my kids get lots of outside play too. We just don't fit neatly into the
categories of the article here. As far as I can tell, my kids are doing fine,
screen time and all. You just need moderation and to mix it up. Screens are
not inherently bad, its about how you use them.

------
gdubs
At the end of the day, the more you can _engage_ with your kid, the better —
but modest amounts of shows, games, etc are not going to ruin their life.
Sometimes parents need a break, so they can be at their best the other 99% of
the time. That’s ok! It’s ok to find a middle way between plopping a kid down
in front of the TV for three to six hours a day (familiar to me and probably a
lot of people who grew up in the 80s and 90s), and stressing that screens will
roy their brains and ruin their chance at getting into Stanford two decades
from now.

------
aaron695
Those pictures are fake.

Not sure how, but other than brain damage two brains wouldn't look different
like that. We don't have the tech for registering the difference in smarts
even if it existed between reading and screen time.

I know the pictures are a mix of the children, but don't understand how?

It feels like the researchers have picked a technique that will give two
different pictures, no matter what given a mix of kids aka a pretty picture
for the media.

I'm sure in the journal article they have not lied. But I can't understand
after reading it what the pictures are. Clever.

------
teekert
"Taking away screens and reading to our children during the formative years of
birth to age 5 boosts brain development. We all know that's true, but now
science can convince us with startling images."

We all know that is true? All my alarm bells go off. It all sounds very
logical and may be exactly what we expect and want to hear. At the same time I
wonder what happens to research that show benefits of digital gadgets to the
development of kids.

------
efgh
I find it amazing that people are trying to justify screens in any way. Just
because a game says is "educational" it's not. Similar to the way "diet" soda
keeps you skinny. Regardless of research, people want to believe they're not
wrong and try to justify that certain kinds of screen time are ok.

~~~
notdang
Doesn't Diet soda normally have 0 calories ?

------
blueboo
Screen time can be great for kids. It's just not a substitute for playing with
peers, interacting with parents, playing with physical toys, doings crafts,
singing and playing music, reading physical books, experiencing nature,
eating, or sleeping.

But assuming your child is getting more than enough of all those, it's great.

~~~
conanbatt
It's an accepted recommendation by pediatricians to not expose kids under 2
years old to tv. The jury is still out there with tables and the such. They
are way more addictive, but also more interactive.

------
mansoor_
Can someone provide the scientific journal/article reference that this report
is based on?

------
cr0sh
I credit much of my success in grade school and now as an adult to the fact
that my mom consistently and constantly encouraged me to read.

She at first did this, when I was a toddler, by teaching me my ABCs and
counting while she "did her bills"; I can't explain her accounting methods,
but there were always dates and numbers and months and...well you get the
idea. She would encourage me to tell her "what month comes next" or "what
number is that"...

Then, as I got older, she started to read to me; first, from a set of "animal
encyclopedia" books my parents got from the grocery store as a "give-away"...

(aside: they don't really do this much any more, but back then to get
customers to come shop, grocery stores and supermarkets would run these
giveaway things where, if you spent so much money, or collected so many
"stamps", you could get "this month's book", or dishes, or utensils or
whatever - so you'd build up a complete encyclopedia set over the course of a
year or so)

...then later from similar encyclopedia books about science; she would read to
me about "the brain" or "the lungs" or "the heart" \- then other subjects, and
I would "read along" with her - she'd ask me "what does this say" and I would
read it.

One other thing I remember my mom encouraging me to do was recognizing car
models and makes; I'm not sure why or if that even fits in here - but it was
something I recall.

As I got older, both of my parents would buy me books on any subject I
desired. I also had several magazine subscriptions (I once had three different
computer magazines coming in - Family Computing, K-Power, and the Rainbow,
plus Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Omni). They purchased and I had
access to two different sets of Encyclopedia Brittanica. I had my own library
card by the time I was in the second grade for the city library system.

At one time I recall I had some problems with reading and spelling - and my
parents got one of those "hooked on phonics" sets and worked with me on that.
Ultimately I went from being an average student to doing much better work and
having an easier time in school.

But all of that ultimately led to my life today; their encouragement of
reading, and of "finding out the answers on my own" ("Dad, what's this and
that?" I'd ask - my dad would reply "Let's look it up in the encyclopedia!")
also encouraged me to become a self-learner, among other things. They were
always encouraging my education, and helping me however they could (when they
saw how much I liked computers, they bought me one, and upgrades - this was in
the 1980s mind you, and none of it was cheap).

I wouldn't be the person or the software engineer I am today had it not been
for their efforts and sacrifices. My parents weren't wealthy (my dad did road
construction for the county, my mom was a "stay at home" mother who earned
extra side-money by selling eggs from our chickens) - but they both knew the
importance of an education, and were always involved in it for me.

But it all ultimately started with reading.

------
C14L
What if a child uses a screen to read?

