These studies really DON'T show that reading to kids changes their brains (or that screen time affects them either)... thread follows
When you see claims like this, you should ask:
1. Was the study just observational?
2. How big is the sample?
3. Did they test for something specific with neuroimaging or just look for anything associated?
4. Did they replicate it?
5. Did they control for genetics?
1. Was the study just observational?
2. How big is the sample?
3. Did they test for something specific with neuroimaging or just look for anything associated?
4. Did they replicate it?
5. Did they control for genetics?
These particular claims are based on two studies with the same cohort. It was just observational (it wasn't a random controlled trial). The sample is tiny: 69. (You would want thousands). They had no specific hypothesis of diffs in the brain, just went fishing...
And when you go fishing for something (out of thousands of variables) to associate with your variable of interest in a small sample... you find something! (almost inevitably)
The only way to know if it's real is to replicate it in another sample. This was not done. So, overall, there is no reason to believe the "findings" of brain structure assoc'd w/ reading/screen time are anything but statistical blips
Moreover, even if they were real, that would be just an association - you can't infer causation from that.
For example, kids who grow up with more books in the house do better at school. Why? Cuz parents have higher IQs and so do kids. (Cuz genetics, not cuz reading)
To sum up, the brain imaging data are hugely likely to be spurious. And even if they were real, they do not show (or really even suggest) a causal effect
Just to clarify point about genetics above: this was to point it out as a common confound in studies like this, among many others. For educational attainment, nature + nurture interact: theconversation.com/nature-versus-…
