Photo credit: M Waterman What we should pay attention to instead Come on a little mind walk with me. The idea of — that the brain continues to rewire itself in response to new experience — is widely understood these days. Brain imaging research has shown us clearly that people grow new brain stuff all the time. In my field, this is also called brain development, because the changes come the experience, as a response to it. So for example, whether you can climb a tree or drive a truck will depend on whether you live in a society that has them; whether you speak English, or Korean, or Arabic will depend on where you grow up and what language(s) your parents speak. neuroplasticity experience-dependent after Most, but not all, of our brain development takes this form — we interact with the world, and the patterns of input and repetition shape our brains. Digital media and kids — a neuroplastic nightmare? This rewiring capacity of the brain has sparked a very abrupt turn in the national conversation about digital media and kids/teens. Over the past twelve months there’s a growing clamor of voices concerned about addictive patterns of tech use. One question being asked is how tech might be wiring kids’ brains differently — and whether that’s for good or ill. What’s sparked this conversation isn’t the concern of educators or parents. It’s the confession on the part of tech designers (like , , and the folks launching the y) that tech companies have been engaged in an intentional effort to keep us hooked. That’s not a statement of evil, it’s merely the natural outcome of a profit-motive advertising-based industry. If you’re going to make money, you need eyeballs on your product; if you’re going to get eyeballs, you need to make your product really enticing. This is well understood — the field is even called ‘ ’ — and designers pay good money to learn how to do this better. Some designers, like Nir Eyal author of , have begun speaking about the possible moral and ethical risks. Tony Fadell Justin Rosenstein Center for Humane Technolog persuasive design Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products How hooked? Notifications play a crucial role in getting our attention and hooking us into our device. A from October 2017 identifies Chris Marcellino as one of the two inventors behind Apple’s 2009 crucial patent for “managing notification connections and displaying icon badges.” Marcellino left the tech industry, and is studying to become, as it turns out, a neurosurgeon. Talking about the neural pathways that notifications recruit, he noted: Guardian article “These are the same circuits that make people seek out food, comfort, heat, sex”. Persuasive design takes advantage of the reward-based circuits of the brain — things like gambling and drug use, that light up our dopamine pathways, and keep us coming back for more. I agree with this new wave of concerned tech designers, many who are new parents: today’s interaction design makes the devices if not outright addictive, then definitely ‘sticky.’ I also agree with those who are starting to speak up on behalf of kids — that this feature is especially a big concern for children in light of what we know about neuroplasticity. That’s not what worries me though. What I’m worried about is the form of brain development. other Experience-expectant brain development Neuroplasticity is not the only way brain development happens. The other form of brain development is called brain development. It consists of periods of intensive growth and consolidation in the brain. The first is during infancy. The second is adolescence. experience-expectant The key difference is that development is going to happen, irregardless of the environmental input. It’s not a response to the person’s experience, although it will be shaped by it. Rather, the brain is getting ready — it generates new dendrites, new myelin, new glial cells — everything that is needed to prepare for the development that is just about to come. And then it clears away what isn’t needed. experience-expectant Why it matters — and why I’m worried Two processes define development: (the making of new synapses) and (the loss of existing synapses). experience-expectant synaptogenesis synaptic pruning synapses represent the possible pathways thought could take in the brain 1. Building connections— synaptogenesis Neurons themselves do not touch. The communication is processed across a gap, or . Any neural pathway, like the ones Chris Marcellino talked about notifications tapping into, is a series chemical and electrical signals passing along many thousands of neurons — a sort of ‘pass the potato’ game happening at the speed of microseconds. synapse In development, the brain is making of new dendrites — which results in of new synapses. This initial oversupply prepares the brain to make massive new connections rapidly — a clear human evolutionary advantage. The oversupply makes possible more connections. Just what kinds, though? experience-expectant a lot a lot billions More possible connections = More possible learning. The brain is preparing for rapid growth and consolidation. This deepening of the brain’s capacity happens just in advance of certain key times in development: Infancy, and adolescence. Well-known milestones in development occur in all typically-developing individuals. In infancy, that includes coordinating the body to allow for motion (crawling, walking, running, climbing) and learning the language(s) spoken to us (both understanding and talking). In adolescence, it includes complex and systematic thought, being able to reflect on one’s thinking, and being future-oriented in a way that enables life planning. Synaptogenesis supports all this new capacity. The overabundance of new synapses in infancy is what enables babies to learn so much so rapidly. While less is known about synaptogenesis in adolescence, there is some recent evidence to suggest that it does take place. Measures of peak cortical thickness, , show that some areas of the brain continue to increase through adolescence. for example 2. Clearing connections away — synaptic pruning Whatever isn’t needed is pruned away. That’s the second part of development. Keep in mind, this is a universal process for all humans — pruning is going to happen regardless of what the child does. gets pruned, though, is highly context-specific. experience-expectant What use it or lose it It is well understood that infancy and adolescence are periods of considerable . And this clearing away of unneeded synapses during these periods is what enables the brain to consolidate what has been learned, and to accomplish it more efficiently. synaptic pruning In infancy, the capacity for human language is being built. If a baby is immersed in English and Spanish language input, the ability to perceive the sounds of those languages will be strengthened and preserved. The ability to perceive other possible human language sounds — the ones that are never actually heard — will be lost. In adolescence, the capacity for systematic thought and self-reflection are being built. If a teen is raised or schooled to look for quick answers to known problems, or to consider the implications of their actions, they will get better at doing so. Skills they do not practice will not only not be strengthened, they will be lost. In this pruning process, the neurons themselves are left standing. What is lost is the density of the dendrites, and the potential synapses they afforded. Dendrites involved in active pathways — the ones that are used — will be retained. The ones that aren’t will be reabsorbed by the body. The potential for connection they offered — thoughts, skills, habits — will be gone. Synaptic pruning and digital media Let’s go back to digital media for a moment. Think about what is happening in the brains of babies and teens. Infant brains are proliferating new synapses at a dizzying rate. I suspect teen brains are too, and that we will learn more in years to come. Those synapses offer an incredible resource for new learning, because they make new neural pathways possible. New skills and experiences are laid down into these pathways at an incredibly rapid rate. A classic example is infants’ vocabulary burst around 16–20 months — they can learn a new word a day, every day, often with only one instance to teach them what this new word means. Teens are capable of incredible mental dexterity, also learning new skills quickly. Just look at any of the big teen challenge competitions — like Google’s Science Fair, FIRST robotics, or Intel’s Science and Engineering Fair — to see the adolescent capacity for deep, methodical, innovative thinking. While it’s true that the brain develops throughout a child’s life, including some synaptic pruning across the entire period of childhood, we know that pruning is intensified in these two periods of infancy and adolescence. Because of brain development, In uniquely formative ways, compared to other periods of childhood. experience-expectant infant brains and teen brains are biologically primed to learn new stuff rapidly, and to consolidate it efficiently into the architecture of the brain. What a powerful time to be using new digital technologies. Is tech harming kids’ brains? No, we don’t yet have the data to show, causally, that tech is damaging kids’ brains. But we do have enough data on other kinds of influences — drugs, alcohol, other teratogens — to know that children’s brains are uniquely vulnerable at specific times. The parts of the brain coming on line during adolescence — that is, the parts that are experiencing the most synaptic pruning — are the executive functioning centers of the brain in the prefrontal cortex and the connections between those control centers and other parts of the brain. We know that drug and alcohol use during this particular period of brain development is uniquely damaging. We know, for example, that roughly ages 15–18 are the worst time for kids to experiment with drugs, and that experimentation at later ages, while probably detrimental, won’t stand to do nearly as much life-long damage. Maybe digital technologies work the same way. Digital teratogens? Comparing digital tech to a teratogen is an inflammatory suggestion, I realize. But we don’t know that it doesn’t work like one. Any environmental influence that disrupts development needs to be taken seriously. Morally, socially, and economically we have a vested interest in understanding how digital technology is impacting kids and teens. Not to turn it off, but to so we can constrain it where appropriate. understand We’re engaged in the largest social experiment of human history as we put powerful, poorly understood technology into the hands of our children. In the space of ten short years we have gone from the of the smartphone to near-saturation of internet-enabled mobile devices. invention New technology is constantly being introduced, so it is very hard to get up-to-the-minute data. But it is obvious that the landscape of access to digital technology is changing very rapidly. It appears that by now, most kids in the US have their own device, or at least have access to their family’s devices. A for the wireless communications industry found that 51% of high school students had a smart phone, 28% of middle school students, and even 8% of kids grades 3–5. That was already true . 2012 survey study by Grunwald 6 years ago By 2017, a Common Sense Media of mobile access (smart phone or tablet) found that 42% of children aged 0–8 had their mobile device. survey study own We know that persuasive design is good at what it does. We know that the apps on today’s devices are better designed at keeping us engaged and drawn in, even beyond our desires to do so. We’re starting to see there’s a problem. A turning point for concerns 2017 marked a turning point — the start of a clarion cry to pay attention to this. Addiction specialist Nicholas Kardaras’s August 2016 book lays out a catastrophic picture of the addictive effect tech is having on kids’ brains — it is so strongly worded and hyperbolic in its warnings, I find even myself pushing back on some of his claims. In Spring 2017 the nonprofit ’ working group on Families, Parenting, and Media published a review of recent research on , in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatricians. In Fall 2017 the child advocacy group Center for a Commercial Free Childhood launched an for reducing kids’ screen time, and the National Academies of Science working group on Media Multitasking published a review on the , also in . Now has partnered with new nonprofit to launch the campaign. Glow Kids Children and Screens Parenting and Digital Media Pediatrics, Action Network Cognitive, Psychological, Neural, and Learning impacts of media multitasking Pediatrics Common Sense Media Center for Humane Technology Truth About Tech Where to go next Digital technologies open up limitless capacity for creativity and problem solving. They also come with unplanned-for implications. There is so much we don’t know yet. And there are good reasons to be worried, with brain development near the top of the list, given how fundamental it may be to the lifelong architecture of the brain. experience-expectant How tech affecting kids? How is it shaping their brains and their futures? We urgently need to be pursuing these questions: is What are the implications of different kinds of digital technology use, especially for infants and for teens, given the profound levels of brain development occurring in these periods? How could design be put to use to enhance our use of technology instead of pitting us against our own best interests? How (much) could education about the impact of persuasive design shift our patterns of use? What role can policy play in safeguarding children’s optimal development? What can we do to shift the pressure of an ad-driven attention economy? The time to sound the alarms is now. Maybe yesterday. Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed it, please give some claps so others can find this too.
