Cited by 254Impact of Technology on AdolescentsChild Development and Digital TechnologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Screen media activity and brain structure in youth: Evidence for diverse structural correlation networks from the ABCD study

Open access
Paulus, Martin P., Squeglia, Lindsay M., Bagot, Kara, Jacobus, Joanna, Kuplicki, Rayus, Breslin, Florence J., Bodurka, Jerzy, Morris, Amanda Sheffield +3 more·2019·NeuroImage

Abstract

The adolescent brain undergoes profound structural changes which is influenced by many factors. Screen media activity (SMA; e.g., watching television or videos, playing video games, or using social media) is a common recreational activity in children and adolescents; however, its effect on brain structure is not well understood. A multivariate approach with the first cross-sectional data release from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study was used to test the maturational coupling hypothesis, i.e. the notion that coordinated patterns of structural change related to specific behaviors. Moreover, the utility of this approach was tested by determining the association between these structural correlation networks and psychopathology or cognition. ABCD participants with usable structural imaging and SMA data (N = 4277 of 4524) were subjected to a Group Factor Analysis (GFA) to identify latent variables that relate SMA to cortical thickness, sulcal depth, and gray matter volume. Subject scores from these latent variables were used in generalized linear mixed-effect models to investigate associations between SMA and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, as well as fluid and crystalized intelligence. Four SMA-related GFAs explained 37% of the variance between SMA and structural brain indices. SMA-related GFAs correlated with brain areas that support homologous functions. Some but not all SMA-related factors corresponded with higher externalizing (Cohen's d effect size (ES) 0.06-0.1) but not internalizing psychopathology and lower crystalized (ES: 0.08-0.1) and fluid intelligence (ES: 0.04-0.09). Taken together, these findings support the notion of SMA related maturational coupling or structural correlation networks in the brain and provides evidence that individual differences of these networks have mixed consequences for psychopathology and cognitive performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.040

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tipping ME, 2001 Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. Journal of Machine Learning Research 1, 211– 244.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paulus, M. P., Squeglia, L. M., Bagot, K., Jacobus, J., Kuplicki, R., Breslin, F. J., Bodurka, J., Morris, A. S., Thompson, W. K., Bartsch, H., & Tapert, S. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
Corresponding author
Paulus, Martin P.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
185
Pages
140-153
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897654119
Cited by
254
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
33.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (U01DA041022, U01DA041025, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U01DA041089, U01DA041093, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, U24DA041123, U24DA041147)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
adolescent brain development, video games, social media use, television viewing, cortical thickness, sulcal depth, gray matter volume, internalizing psychopathology, externalizing psychopathology, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study
MeSH terms
Screen Time, Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Brain, Child, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Individuality, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Nerve Net, Adolescent Development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review