PParenting generations are constantly being told to limit their children’s screen time. But when it comes to deciphering which movies and TV shows are best for developing minds, Guidance remains largely one-size-fits-all. A relatively slow-paced show like Bluey provides a very different viewing experience than a fast-moving action series like PAW Patrol, although both are widely considered to be suitable for young children.
This challenge continues to grow as the types of content that children are exposed to evolves. “Today’s young audiences are increasingly interested in short, fast-paced and highly engaging content that is created by splicing and rearranging existing episodic content into quickly digestible fragments and compilations,” said Professor Tim Smith, Director of the Institute of Neurology, University of the Arts London. “This evolution will not only change how content is produced and distributed, but may also impact children’s attention, comprehension, and emotional responses.”
Although young children process information differently than adults, there is still relatively little evidence about how specific features of children’s programs influence children’s attention, comprehension, and behavior. “Our two-year-olds spend three to four hours a day looking at screens, so it’s really important to have a broader understanding of what it means for them to watch age-appropriate content,” said Alisa Musatova, research assistant at the Animating Minds Project.
Animating Minds is just one of the ongoing studies at Nerve Lab, which opened in London earlier this week. The first of its kind in the UK, the facility combines wearable brain imaging, motion capture and AI-powered analysis to study how people respond to media and artistic experiences in real time. Other projects are developing tools to help visually impaired people interact with video games and create live dance and music performances.
To better understand how different styles of children’s content influence young viewers, Musatova and colleagues amassed a database of nearly 1,000 episodes of popular animated television shows and interviewed animators, producers, and commissioners about the creative decisions that shape children’s content, using AI-based tools to analyze characteristics such as pacing, color, volume, shot frequency, and narrative structure.
We are also currently recruiting UK families with older children It takes 3 to 6 years to participate in an online study investigating how animated shows affect short-term attention span.
Their ultimate goal is to develop tools that help animators, commissioners, and regulators understand whether their shows are having the intended effect on their target audience, while laying the foundation for a more nuanced classification system.
“The question is: Can we build a computational system that can understand and predict the direct impact that animated content for children has on young children?” Smith said.
Professor Heather Kerkorian, a developmental psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies children’s media use, agreed that more research is needed to address this gap.
“The digital media landscape has changed a lot in the last few years,” she said. “There is much speculation about the potential impact on development, but few studies have used precise measurements of the type proposed in this study.”
He added that AI-based tools have the potential to analyze children’s programming on a scale that was previously unrealistic. “Previously, this type of work required very time-consuming and sometimes subjective or imprecise manual coding. Now, as streaming platforms have democratized content creation, young children are watching an ever-increasing amount of video on a variety of platforms, and time-consuming manual coding can’t keep up.”
Polly Conway, senior editor at Common Sense Media, which provides reviews and age-appropriate guidance on children’s media, said further evidence about the effects of children’s programming on young brains could be valuable, especially if researchers can quantify characteristics that have been difficult to define so far.
“Just because a show or YouTube channel teaches the ABCs, numbers, and shapes, it may not be teaching them at the appropriate level for their target audience,” she says.
Another Nerve Lab project uses brain imaging and behavioral data to investigate individual differences in children’s math comprehension and identify new ways to support them.
Take fractions. Two children can answer the same question incorrectly, but for different reasons. One person may not understand fractions, and the other may simply have a hard time suppressing their intuitive reactions based on whole numbers. For example, assume that 4 is greater than 2, so 1/4 must be greater than 1/2.
“Traditional tests tell you whether an answer is correct and how many seconds it took a child to solve it, but they don’t tell you why two children made the same mistake,” says Dr. Rakhi Leela Naar, who leads the Mastronauts project. “One child may need help learning the concept of fractions. Another child may know the rules but need help stopping, thinking, and blocking wrong answers.”
It’s hoped that a non-invasive brain scan called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) may help figure out what’s going on. While playing math games on the computer, the children wear neoprene caps studded with sensors that use near-infrared light to monitor activity in different areas of the brain. This information, combined with game scores, is used in real time to adapt the game and provide more personalized support.
Children who seem to understand math concepts but react impulsively and get questions wrong are directed to tasks that encourage them to slow down and think more carefully before answering. Those who have not yet mastered the concepts will be given additional education and exercises to strengthen their understanding. The system is currently being tested with seven and eight-year-olds at a north London primary school.
Professor Roy Cohen-Kadosh, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Surrey, described the approach as a “plausible and potentially useful direction for educational neuroscience”, but cautioned that its value would depend on whether brain imaging data could provide insights beyond those gained from teachers and traditional assessments.
“The key test is whether the system performs better than existing approaches,” he said. “Teachers may already be able to distinguish between children who lack conceptual understanding and those who respond impulsively.”
Technologies such as fNIRS should be seen as tools to support teachers, rather than replace them, he added. “We have the opportunity to leverage neuroscience, psychology, and AI to better understand learners and give teachers better tools.”
