Considerations for Studying Parental Technology Use in a Child’s Presence

To the Editor We would like to express our appreciation for the landmark study by Toledo-Vargas et al. This strict systematic review revealed through quantitative analyses that parental technological distractions were significantly associated with delayed cognitive development, impaired social-emotional competence, and increased screen time in young children. The study’s integration of evidence using the PRISMA framework establishes an important methodological paradigm for parent-child interaction research in the digital age. The observational group design may be improved, even though the researchers’ Parental Technology Use (PTU) measure was novel. It is advised that the Occupational Technology Use Scale be used to distinguish between work-related and private use because the study did not thoroughly record the type of parental occupation (eg, knowledge workers vs manual laborers) and their needs for work-related technology use. The information that is currently available indicates that the effects of leisure technology use and essential technology use on children of telecommuting parents differ significantly. Parent-child age differences (especially for parents 35 years and older) may regulate the effects of technology use; therefore, multigenerational cohort designs (eg, parents who were born between 1997 and 2012 vs parents who were born between 1981 and 1996) are recommended. Neuroscience studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex of older parents is less neurally synchronized with their teenage children this biological basis may amplify the technology interference effect. The inclusion of the Hofstede cultural dimension indicators is advised based on recent developments in cultural developmental psychology, even though the study includes standardized covariate adjustments for geoeconomic factors (country, household income, etc). The science and technology interference (STI) effect may be mitigated by racial and religious disparities in parenting approaches (eg, collectivist vs individualist orientation). Furthermore, it is advised that a 24-hour ecological assessment, like the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale, be used to measure family climate and document the quality of family interactions. Highly cohesive families mitigate the adverse impacts of technology interference, according to longitudinal studies. In order to examine the multilevel moderating effects, it is crucial to differentiate between restrictive and directive digital parenting methods and to create structural equation modeling. We are especially worried that PTU might impact children’s development via 3 particular brain mechanisms: (1) defective emotional decoding in the mirror neuron system, (2) compensatory overactivation of spatial orientation, and (3) functional suppression of prefrontal attentional networks. By measuring the effect size, this meta-analysis validates the possible danger of digital devices as social black holes of attention. We urge the creation of a tech-aware parenting framework in light of the special characteristics of the early childhood neuroplasticity window (age 0-5 years with a synapse production rate of 700/s) and recommend that future research continue to investigate intergenerational transfer effects, PTU dose-response curves, and virtual reality–based interactive parent-child interactive repair training.