Reset Your Child's Brain. Victoria L. Dunckley, MD
game use that looks remarkably similar to that from drug and alcohol abuse,7 so something about the interactive nature either directly (through hyperarousal) or indirectly (through addiction processes) makes interactive screen-time more potent as well as distinct.
When implementing the electronic fast in the Reset Program, I typically allow small amounts of television or movies under certain conditions (as discussed in chapter 5). If these conditions are met, the fast is still highly effective. On the other hand, allowing even small amounts of gaming or computer play often renders the Reset useless. Thus, for the Reset Program, we are primarily concerned with eliminating interactive screen-time. Additionally, most parents become overwhelmed at the thought of taking away all electronics, so allowing a small amount of passive viewing of appropriate, calm content provides parents with a bit of a respite. That said, I do not take television’s effects lightly, especially on the very young,* and I applaud anyone who removes all passive screen-time in addition to the other requirements of the fast. Regarding computer use for school purposes, I typically allow it during the Reset, but certain exceptions and rules apply (as discussed in chapters 5 and 10).
Common Misconceptions about Problematic Screen-Time
Misconceptions abound when it comes to screen-time, even among mental health professionals. For starters, it’s not just violent video games that can cause dysregulation, but any video game — including educational or seemingly benign games, like puzzles or building games. Another myth is that it’s only children who are “addicted” to gaming, Internet use, or social media who experience issues, or that screen-time only becomes a problem when parents don’t restrict it. In fact, many children display symptoms from screen-time without being addicted per se, and some children become overstimulated and dysregulated with only minimal amounts of screen exposure. I see many families in which the parents limit usage to levels at or below what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends (no more than one to two hours total screen-time daily),8 but if some or most of that time is interactive, it can easily create a problem.
The truth is, every child is affected differently. Comparing your child’s screen-time to his or her peers isn’t helpful either, as it doesn’t necessarily provide protection if it’s less than others’. The average child is exposed to several fold–higher levels of electronic screen media compared to just one generation ago — not to mention the constant bombardment of wireless communication that often accompanies it.
This fact bears emphasizing: “moderate use” today amounts to exposing your child to levels of electronics use never before seen in history.
This is why I caution parents against trying to distinguish between “good” and “bad” screen-time or between “too much” and “only a little.” Though understandable, this mind-set is risky. The purpose of the Reset is to provide the brain with a clean break and adequate rest to return to its natural state. The reality is that there are likely many variables — too many to sort out — between various screen activities and each individual child’s makeup and vulnerabilities. But even if we could distinguish them all, these differences would likely be meaningless in the larger picture. Among all the various kinds of problematic screen-time, research is uncovering more similarities than differences. Thus, when approaching a Reset, the easiest and most productive thing to do is to lump all interactive screen-time together.
Kindle, Cartoons, and Cognitive Load
So why is it that reading a book before bed is soothing, while viewing an e-reader can be just the opposite? In either case, we are reading the same content, whether that be an adventure story or an historical account. It’s that the medium itself affects the amount of energy needed to process and synthesize information, a factor researchers call cognitive load. Parents often ask if e-readers like the Kindle or Nook “count” as interactive devices. After all, these particular devices do not emit light, they use electronic “ink,” and they are supposed to read like a regular paper book. Only they don’t. Studies show that reading is slower and that recall and comprehension is impaired when using an e-reader, suggesting that the brain doesn’t process the information as easily.9 Conversely, research suggests that the sensory feedback of a real book helps us incorporate information: the weight, texture, and pressure felt from holding a book; the cracking of its spine and flipping of its pages; the buildup of turned pages that provides a sense of how far along you are in the story — all reduce the cognitive load needed to absorb the information. Finally, while e-ink displays are less visually fatiguing than LCD screens, they are still hard to visually and cognitively process because they are pixelated, display a “flash” when refreshing between pages, and don’t provide 3-D input.
High cognitive load is also the reason I eliminate fast-paced cartoons for the Reset. If some TV is allowed, what’s watched should be, above all, slow-paced. Cartoons of all kinds are typically much more rapidly paced today. Scene changes, movement within scenes, and plot points unfold very quickly, and all of this the brain must digest. A recent study demonstrated that just nine minutes of viewing a fast-paced cartoon impaired memory, the ability to follow direction, and the ability to delay gratification in toddlers compared to viewing a slower-paced cartoon.10 It’s not just pace, either. Intense color, fantastical events, and sudden or loud noises also contribute to sensory and cognitive overload.
The Controversy Over Electromagnetic Fields and Health
Do manmade electromagnetic fields (EMFs) play a role in ESS or other health conditions? No one denies that manmade EMFs — which arise from electronic devices themselves as well as from wireless communication (such as WiFi or mobile phone frequencies) — have biological effects. It is a basic tenet of physics that nearby electromagnetic fields influence one another. The question is whether those biological effects are meaningful. In other words, do higher levels of everyday EMF exposure translate into health issues the average person wouldn’t have experienced otherwise?
At present, research on the kinds of fields produced by wireless communication is still relatively “young,” and the findings are not always consistent. However, there is a growing body of objective, non-industry-funded research — that includes studies from highly respected institutions such as Columbia, Yale, and Harvard — that suggests these fields may be harmful.11 Some of the research is highly technical and difficult to grasp; for example, some evidence suggests that extremely weak fields may be more harmful than stronger ones. Interestingly, some of the findings are strikingly similar to those found in screen-time studies, so there may be synergistic mechanisms occurring, particularly for individuals with sensitive constitutions. Personally, I feel there’s fairly strong evidence that, at a minimum, manmade EMFs cause inflammation. I also think appreciating how they can interact with the nervous system (which is, after all, electrical, and thus produces an electromagnetic field itself) adds to our understanding of how electronics impact us. My best guess is that EMFs are a portion of the stress from electronics, and that proportion varies widely depending on the individual’s chemical and electrical makeup.
Regardless, the precautionary principle dictates that when the science regarding the risks of a new technology is not yet fully conclusive — and in this case it won’t be for decades — that we should proceed with caution and minimize exposure wherever possible, particularly when it comes to children. At the same time, when one fully understands the EMF science and believes there is even possible risk to the developing child, it opens a whole new can of worms — especially considering the explosive growth of wireless communications in public places, like schools.
Because this is such a complicated and emotionally charged topic, the bulk of relevant EMF information is presented in appendix B, “Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and Health: A ‘Charged’ Issue.” Additionally, since it’s not totally necessary to appreciate or accept the role of EMFs to address Electronic Screen Syndrome, “carving it out” reduces the amount of information you’ll