Monday, February 6, 2012

American Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations


The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of two do not watch any TV. Why would they recommend this???  One important reason is because the first two years of life are considered a critical time for brain development (Kids Health Org, 2011).

Let’s first discuss how our brains work. Our brains contain neurons which are the functioning core of it. Each neuron contains branches or dendrites that emerge from the cell body. These dendrites take chemical signals across a synapse and the impulse then travels the length of the axon. Each axon has a sac which contains neurotransmitters at its tip. So, an electrical impulse then causes the release of the neurotransmitters which stimulate or prevent neighboring dendrites.

A remarkable increase in synapses occurs during the first year of life. The brain develops a functional architecture through the development of these synapses or connections.

The increase in synaptic density in a child's brain can be seen in figure 1. The interactions that parents assist with in a child's environment are what spur the growth and pattern of these connections in the brain.


Figure 1

As the synapses in a child's brain are strengthened through repeated experiences, connections and pathways are formed that structure the way a child learns. If a pathway is not used, it's eliminated based on the "use it or lose it" principle. Things you do a single time, either good or bad, are somewhat less likely to have an effect on brain development.

When a connection is used repeatedly in the early years, it becomes permanent. For example, when adults repeat words and phrases as they talk to babies, babies learn to understand speech and strengthen the language connections in the brain.


           An article from the Deseret News showed that babies are capable of lip reading.  A study was done on 180 babies ages 4 to 12 months old and scientists found that they don’t just learn to talk from hearing sounds. They are able to lip-read. Around 6 months of age is when babies begin to shift their eyes from intent eye gazing to studying mouths when people talk to them. This shows that quality face -time with your child is very important for speech development; more than turning on the latest DVD. The coos of early infancy start changing around age 6 months and then grow into the syllables of the baby’s native language until the first word comes out, usually right before  age 1. By babies first birthday they start shifting back to look at you in the eye again, except if they hear the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign language. Then, they stay with lip-reading a little bit longer.

           
          Since the year 1993, 3 studies done, have evaluated the effects of heavy television use on language development in children 8 to 6 months of age. These studies have shown that in the short term, children younger than 2 years old who watch more television or videos have expressive language delays. They also found that children younger than 1 year with heavy television viewing who are watching TV by themselves, have a significantly higher chance of having a language delay.


           Also, in order for a show to be educational your child needs to be able to understand the content and context of the video. Many of these videos tailored for infants or toddlers claim to be educational, but studies have shown that children under the age of two do not have the understanding yet.


Furthermore, TV can get in the way of exploring, playing, and interacting with parents and others, which all encourage learning and healthy physical and social development ( Kids Health Organization, 2011)

           


34 comments:

  1. Interesting research. I would suggest however, that one can find a study to support just about any position... for example, there are many studies that have been done on the "Baby Mozart" infant/toddler shows, showing them to have a positive impact on learning. Turns out that research was biased and the findings questionable... but we need to be sure to look at other studies with the same critiquing eye... looking at potential bias of the organization/foundation funding/conducting the study and any conflicts of interest is a good start... then looking at the over-reaching of implications of the findings, which is super common... and of course some studies, while interesting, simply are not done in a scientific manner, and therefore findings cannot be generalized to a broader population. I would suggest that at least some of the studies cited in this post are biased and the findings not necessarily as conclusive as we may think on the face of it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon, how is the Kaiser Family Foundation, Healthy Children Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics or any other source I have put in my blogs biased? These are all credible sources.If you actually read the full articles that I posted as links you would see that they are not biased. The articles I found are based off of studies they have done NOT to prove an opinion they already have going before a study. They are just results that they have found from trying to find out how and if media affects children. What do you mean when you say that studies are not done in a "scientific manner." What makes a study done in a scientific way?

      Delete
    2. I am not saying they are all necessarily biased, I am just putting forth that warning... as I would to anyone citing research... And the potential bias that each study could have based on the funding organization should be apparent by the names of the organizations, with "family," "children," and "pediatrics" in their very names... these are organizations focused on kids and families, and thus may have a different agenda than another type of organization... again, it doesn't mean the research is biased, it just is something to consider... for example, a large media organization that sells video games could fund research to show that violent video games are beneficial to kids... I would questions the findings/results based on the organization funding the research, and rightfully so (side note: lots of studies have been done to show the harm of violent video games on children, but most of that research is flawed in its base assumptions and research design and is not good research... that doesn't mean that violent video games aren't harmful to kids, but it does mean that we need to be careful when citing such studies as evidence to support our case against violent video games... does that make sense?)... anyway, there are lots of things that make a study sound scientific research or not, which would require courses in research methods and statistics to adequately explain... the point is, we just always need to be careful and question the sources of the research we cite, not always taking them on face value... Not a personal attack, just a general comment for your consideration as you continue with posts in future weeks...

      Delete
    3. Jon, as a matter of fact I appreciate your comments very much because I know that you are a researcher and you have a lot of knowledge when it comes to finding the right studies so, please keep commenting. I took a research proposal class last semester and a statistics class so I am aware of methodology, sample sizes, procedures, validity, reliability, instruments, data analysis using standard deviation, p values, and or confidence intervals, etc. I do agree with you as well about finding the right sources and information, but in my opinion as a nurse educator,I feel these are good sources to get the latest research from.

      Delete
  2. Well there you have it. Glad you found the studies. I knew there was something out there saying that tv watching wasn't beneficial. However one thing I learned from college ( I took a lot of courses on statistics and psychology) was that you are always going to find two sides to things. You will find that statistics constantly change and they are a lot of biases. You have to find what you support. Personally I think I won't have my girl watching TV unless I'm desperately needing to take a shower or something and can't find anything else. But I'm not going to be anal about it. We can't be anal about everything then we'll just drive ourselves crazy.


    P.s. you should check out my blog sometime. brittneeallthetime.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's true Brittnee about statistics and about finding what you support. I think it's difficult to have your child go without TV for their first years of life, I already have not been able to do it... but I try to use TV as the last resort when I have tried everything else to keep her occupied. I actually do really enjoy playing with her though because she is so responsive, smiles a lot, and I am getting her to laugh. I just looked at your blog and I LOVE it:)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow Lauren I am very impressed with the research you found and posted. I find it very interesting and true. I especially liked the research given from Deseret News on how quality face to face time in a baby's first year of life is very important for their speech development. I have always been told that time is the best gift you could give your child. Children crave that one on one time of undivided attention. I had a friend tell me of how it was recommended to her that she spend 10 minutes a day with each of her children individually doing whatever it is that he or she wants to do. She said not only did this strengthened the bond between her and each of her children but she also saw improvement in their development. She said they read books together, colored together, played games together and as a result, her family spent less time watching T.V. I can definitely understand how quality time and parent-child interaction can have an affect on a child's development especially in the early stages of their life. Thank you for sharing this information with me. I loved reading about it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the 10 minutes a day with your children is a good idea:) In what ways did your friend see improvements in her children's development?

      Delete
  5. Wow, I just finished reading the information included in all the links. Very interesting and valuable info on how a baby/child learns and the effects of media on that learning. What I get from the research is that talking, reading, and playing with your child goes miles further in the development of the child than any media substitute. If I was a young mom all over again, I would keep the media off during the day and after the children are in bed, I might take some time to catch a favorite program. That's the ideal situation as I know I probably had the TV on during the day if I had to take a shower and no one to watch the little ones. It was a lot of info to read but very valuable. . . my two favorites were the eye gazing and lip reading in the Deseret News post and the one by the American Academy of Pediatrics. . . so interesting and substantiated by much studies. Thanks for posting the info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad that you read the full articles because I think that it goes more in depth. I think that it might be easier for me to go with out having the television on for Taylor because it its just her that I am taking care of, but I can imagine it gets more tricky when there are more children involved.

      Delete
  6. WOW! Way to go OSTA! I loved reading all the info and links to the articles you posted! Wish I had learned all this when I was a young mother (or even before). I totally DISAGREE with Jon!!!! Of course there are going to be contradicting opinions, but those that are, usually aren't credible opinions, and are just that: OPINIONS, with no studies or research to back them up! The Kaiser Found., Healthy Children Org., & Academy of Ped., are the most reliable sources there are & have been around for years! If they weren't credible, they'd have been out of business years ago! Being a stay at home mom, I loved interacting with my babies and children. The TV, or any other media will never take the place of that. Children react to people, respond to faces, voices, pictures. I will admit to turning on the TV when my girls were babies, but usually as a last resort. If I was showering, they were playing in the area just outside the bathroom. As infants, I would place them in front of our wardrobe mirrors and they loved looking at themselves in the mirror & would coo with delight! I'm sure they didn't know they were looking at themselves. Just shows how they respond to others. The only response from the TV at that age was maybe big eyes from the different colors. No vocal response. Keep up the good work Lauren! I can't turn the time back, but you're certainly helping me become a better grandma!! :) grandma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comments! I agree with everything that you said and about what babies react to. I read recently in a parenting book that babies do exactly what you do when you are watching the TV: vegging out. So, it would make sense that they would react and learn more when having someone talk to them face to face. That is a good idea of putting your baby in front of the mirror... I'll have to try that:)

      Delete
  7. Didn't mean to have the word grandma after the smiley face! :(

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Lauren, My friend saw improvement in her youngest child age 6. She said her language, fine motor, gross motor, and social skills all improved as they spent more time together. She could hold a crayon/pencil better, she was able to better communicate and interact with children her age, and she able to better kick a soccer ball from out door play with her dad. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is interesting. I have two children, ages four and two. My oldest only watched television (before the age of 2) when I was cutting his hair and I needed him to be very still and calm or other rare occasions when other people were tending him. BUT my second saw a lot more TV because of her brother! And right now we are watching tons of TV because everyone has been sick for weeks. I know I need to cut back. Thanks for the info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really enjoyed your comments Jamie. How did having two kids make a difference on the amount of television watched?

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I just saw this. I think having two kids made a huge difference on the amount of TV watched, as did our move to the desert. When we lived in Santa Barbara, we could go out and play at the beach or the park practically every day. The climate is so steady and mild there. When we moved to Arizona and I had another little one, our TV watching went up. We can't go outside (unless I want to risk my child getting 3rd degree burns) for almost half of the year! And inside play places aren't really my favorite. Our house is bigger, but the kids can get bored, and I get tired of keeping up with a big house and two kids!
      To return to the original question, when Gwen was a baby she required a lot of attention, obviously. I often turned to videos when play dates fell through. I was so tired, I couldn't think of anything else to do. And with children at such different ages, I always felt like I couldn't provide what both of them needed at the same time... cue the videos. It sounds more constant than it really was, and now it is much better since the kids are finally at an age where they can play together. (And the weather is great right now!) But when my 2 year old was a baby my older child was exposed to a lot more TV.
      Sorry for the novel. lol.

      Delete
  10. This is very interesting. I do think that a lot of parents put their children in front of the tv without the thought of how it affects them. I don't think a little tv is bad though... especially if it is something like Baby Einstein. :) Nice research Lauren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Tracy for commenting:) You bring up Baby Einstein which until recently I thought actually was good for babies, provided some educational worth, and stimulated their brains. I was wrong. After researching Baby Einstein I found that studies had shown that with every hour spent watching it, infants learned 6-8 fewer vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. If you have ever watched a Baby Einstein you would realize that most of them don't have people talking; they have rapid scene changes and quick edits. There is none of the "baby talk" that they enjoy listening to. So, babies need the face to face interaction

      Delete
    2. Oops I forgot to put the link that I found this information from it's:

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1650352,00.html

      Also, I agree with you about a little TV not being bad. I just think parents should do (me included) the best they can to limit TV when children are under the age of 2 and then when they are older than that, try to include other activities for your children to do besides having the television on ALL the time. Again... thank you so much for comments:)

      Delete
  11. I've always wanted to see a picture of a child's brain... Good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad that you liked the picture. In future posts, I will try to include more pictures that hopefully you can find interesting.

      Delete
  12. Great info Lauren. We have never had cable in our home since we have been married, I dont miss it at all. I spend the days with my boys outside for the most part but William (3) does enjoy an evening video after the bath. Zachary (21 months) will only sit with him for 5 or so minutes before he gets bored and finds a toy or something to play with. Sometimes I try to put on an ABC video for Zachary to help him learn, so your information on their understanding was helpful to hear. Anyway, Thanks for the research. I will keep this in mind as well when #3 arrives in May. It's nice to continue to learn what good and important things you can do for your children. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris and I don't have cable either. I think if we did we might be spending too much time watching it. I am so excited that you have a baby arriving soon! What ABC video do you have Zachary watch?

      Delete
    2. It's Richard Scary's best ABC video ever and also best learning songs ever :) They are pretty old school.

      Delete
  13. We let our oldest daugher watch the Baby Einsten dvd's when she was a baby. She enjoyed them. In fact, when she cried in the car, we would turn on the einsten cds (which plays the same music that is on the dvds) and she would stop crying. Thank goodness for Bach and Mozart. I have no idea if her exposure to the dvds did anything becuase we tried to show our other two kids the eisten dvds and they hated them. The effect of tv on kids under 2 will of course be different for each kid.

    I'm not sure if the recommendation to prevent children under 2 from watching any tv is worth the hassle of enforcement when the exposure is limited to 30 minutes or so a day. I think this info is more applicable to the loser parents who sit around all day watching tv themselves with their kids instead of working (and doing other wholesome activities with their kids).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Travis,
      I don't think there is anything wrong with playing the Einstein CDs with the music. I actually read somewhere that the Bach and Mozart music is good for them to hear. Now, as far the the Baby Einstein Videos go that is another story. Did you know that the Baby Einstein company refunded $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009? The reason they did this is because lawyers threatened a class-action lawsuit for unfair and deceptive practices unless Disney agreed to refund the full purchase price to all who bought the videos since 2004. The Baby Einstein marketing company implied claims that their videos were educational and beneficial for early childhood development, which claims were false because research showed that television viewing is potentially harmful for very young children. The lawyers also presented studies shown that television exposure at ages 1 to 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7. So, why would these kids have attention problems? I think it's because they were overstimulated from watching the videos. Like I was saying in another comment, the images shown on the videos are fast paced and there is usually no one talking. Babies learn the best from parents playing with their children and talking with them.

      Here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html

      However I do think that not all children will be affected negatively from the Baby Einstein videos, and Jordan is a good example from that because I know that she is very smart. I also agree with you about parents and kids watching TV all day are going to benefit the most from the information that I posted. However, I think it's important for parents in general to be aware of the risks involved with watching Baby Einstein videos or other videos tailored to babies. Thank you for your comments!

      Delete
  14. I think moderation is the key to everything. I agree that a lot of tv is not good for anyone, child or adult. I also think that a little wholesome tv time is not harmful at all for children. Each of my 3 children have watched tv from the time they were about 6 months old. What they watched and how much varied as they got older, but as a mother I found that my kids were very stimulated by the shows. Each kid was different in what they found interesting and what they preferred. None of my children had speech delays and none of my children are doing poorly in school.

    Talking about your research on Baby Einstein shows, I think you need to be careful with academic studies. I think scientists often find the information they are looking to find. Although not scientific at all, I have found a better way to parent is by observation of my kids and by my gut instinct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kristy,

      It is true that some babies can be stimulated from Baby Einstein, but they can also be overstimulated from it as well. Case in point... A few months ago I got really sick. I had a sore throat, a sinus infection, and the stomach flu all at the same time. I was unable to care for Taylor the way that I would usually, so I had her watch Baby Einstein every time she was awake because I had no energy to do anything else. I did this for a few days until I had the strength to play with her again. I noticed significant changes in her behavior during those days,which might suggest her being overstimulated. She was irritable, crying more, and even after I held her or tried to comfort her, she would still be upset. I noticed after I got better and stopped having her watch them, her behavior was back to her usual self. I also agree with you that not every child is going to be negatively affected by television and obviously your kids were not:) But, I still think parents need to be aware of risks involved when having their kids watch Baby Einstein or use it as a babysitter. Also, in regards to your children being stimulated by shows... are you talking about Baby Einstein or are you talking about other shows? In regards to the research found on Baby Einstein shows I just want to make one point. While a baby is watching a Baby Einstein show there is no one talking to them: from the show and from a parent. So wouldn't it make sense that children would have decreased vocabulary because no one is talking to them?

      Delete
  15. I have a hard time drawing a hard line as far as 0 television for the first two years. I would not argue that there are better things a kid could be doing than viewing television, but I also believe, as Travis said, that if it's with moderation, used very sparingly, there will be no long term repercussions. Any delays resulting will be marginal at best and easily overcome. This is just my opinion based on my own experience which is a small sample size of course. I do not debate the research and I can acknowledge that, ideally, we wouldn't turn to the television as frequently as we do either for our own entertainment or that of our children. Ideally, we would have an array of activities available at every instant for the development and enlightenment of our children. Realistically, it's not possible, but I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting for the ideal, increasing stimulating forms of entertainment while decreasing those of the mindless variety. It's never going to be all or nothing, but rather we will all find ourselves somewhere on a continuum. I think this blog and info is helpful if for no other reason, it promotes self awareness of our own practices, and encourages life style adjustments which can move us and our children to the healthier end of the spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the key in the research Lauren cites is the repetition needed to develop the pathways etc. You look around and see how some parents do their parenting by putting their kids (of any age) in front of the TV for uncontrolled periods of time. I think it is also fairly safe to assume that, in most of these extreme examples, these children are probably also lacking the positive contact (such as the "face-time" that Lauren mentioned) making the effects of the frequent viewing that much worse.

      As this is correlation not causal, I think it is fair to say that Taylor's (or Nora's) brains will not be melted by minimal TV contact, as they will both benefit from all of the positive human contact that they will get, as opposed to many other children/families. Moderation is certainly a good thing, but I think one of the big points of Lauren's post is that we probably shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that our infants are going to be learning much from these shows either (which I'm sure many parents use as justification to put their kid in front of the TV more!).

      Nice post Lauren.

      Delete
  16. I like all the research and studies and all the comments of others. It leaves me to believe that there should be more studies. I’m 62 years old and this is what I started to think about. What is the correlation between weight gain and TV and from what age? When I was a 10 year old, I can only remember one kid that was overweight. Today it’s like 20% or something. What if any is the correlation between TV and A.D.D. symptoms? Folks older than 60 didn’t watch that much TV when they were little. The only kids shows were on Saturday morning and they were in Black and White. The early 60’s is when color TV was introduced. I don’t believe kids had A.D.D. back then and if they did, they must have just got over it. Do you know any adults over 50 that are taking A.D.D. drugs? What’s changed between this generation and the last? A lot more than just TV of course. But there is no doubt that media and mostly TV has been the conduit by which we as a society have become the people we are today, myself included. So … I believe your studies and research must be correct. T.V. and children can’t be a good combination. One more thing to think about. What if a child had a T.V. for a parent 24 hours a day. Speech, touch, communication, love, exercise and a lot more would never be experienced.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dale,
    I thought you brought up many valid points. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on how the media or specifically TV has changed in your life time. I think that I would be scared to have Taylor watch a lot of television now because of all of those things you said that children miss out on if I did.

    ReplyDelete