Table 2 Concise overview of TV programs' effects on children's EF studies
Study | Participants | TV program’s | EF type | Conditions | EF assessment | Conclusion | Quality | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature | Length | Â | Â | Pre-viewing | Post-viewing | Â | Â | ||
Lillard and Peterson [13] | n = 60 4-year-olds | Pace | 9 min | Cool EF Hot EF | 1. SpongeBob SquarePants (fast-paced) 2. Caillou (slow-paced) 3. drawing (control) | Parent Questionnaires | Cool EF: • Tower of Hanoi task • Head, Toes, Knees, and Shoulders task (HTKS) • Backward Digit Span Hot EF: • Delay-of-Gratification (DoG) | Negative effect of fast-paced TV programs on Cool EF and Hot EF | 19/21 |
Lillard et al. [14] | Study 1: n = 160 4- and 6-year-olds | Pace and Fantasy combined | 11 min | Cool EF Hot EF | 1. SpongeBob SquarePants (fast-paced & fantastical) 2. Fan Boy and Chum Chum (fast-paced & fantastical) 3. Arthur (slow-paced & non-fantastical) 4. Free-play with toys (control) | Parent Questionnaires | Cool EF: • Tower of Hanoi task • Head, Toes, Knees, and Shoulders task (HTKS) • Auditory Working Memory Creativity: • Functional Fixedness task Hot EF: • Delay-of-Gratification (DoG) | Negative effect of fast-paced and fantastical TV programs on Cool EF No effect of fast-paced and fantastical TV programs on Hot EF, but slow-paced and non-fantastical ones have a positive effect No immediate effect of pace and fantasy on creativity | 17/21 |
Study 2: n = 60 4-year-olds | Pace and Fantasy combined | 22 min | Cool EF | 1. SpongeBob SquarePants (fast-paced & fantastical) 2. Martha Speaks video (fast-paced & fantastical) 3. Martha Speaks Book (control) | Parent Questionnaires | • Tower of Hanoi task • Dimensional Changes Card Sort (DCCS) • Auditory Working Memory • Luria’s Hand game | Negative effect of fast-paced and fantastical TV programs on EF | 17/21 | |
Study 3: n = 80 4-year-olds | Pace and Fantasy | 8–9 min | Cool EF | 1. SpongeBob SquarePants (fast-paced & fantastical) 2. Phineas and Ferb (fast-paced & non-fantastical = 0.13) 3. Little Einsteins (slow-paced & fantastical) 4. Little Bill (slow-paced & non-fantastical) | Parent Questionnaires • Dimensional Changes Card Sort (DCCS) • Auditory Working Memory • Luria’s Hand game • Gift Wrap DoG | Cool EF: • Tower of Hanoi task • Head, Toes, Knees, and Shoulders task (HTKS) • Auditory Working Memory • Day/Night task Hot EF: • Forbidden Toy DoG | No immediate effect of pacing Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on Cool EF * The two Hot EF tasks were left out of all analyses | 17/21 | |
Sanketh et al. [28] | n = 279 4- to 6-year-olds | Pace | 10 min | Motor EF | 1. Tom and Jerry (fast-paced) 2. Barney cartoon (slow-paced) 3. Painting with crayons | • Seguin Form Board | • Namely Color Match • Two-piece Puzzle • Separating Colored Beads | Negative effect of fast-paced TV programs on motor EF | 16/21 |
Li et al. [42] | Study 1: n = 72 4- and 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 11 min | Inhibitory control | 1. Dr. Panda in Space videoclip (fantastical) 2. Dr. Panda in Space game (fantastical) | • Go-No-Go task | • Go-No-Go task | Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on inhibitory control, but no effect of fantastical games | 13/21 |
Study 3: n = 72 4- and 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 11 min | Inhibitory control | 1. Dr. Panda in Home videoclip (non-fantastical) 2. Dr. Panda in Home game (non-fantastical) | • Go-No-Go task | • Go-No-Go task | Positive effect of non-fantastical TV programs and games on inhibitory control | 14/21 | |
Jiang et al. [26] | n = 143 5-year-olds | Fantasy | 12 min | Inhibitory control Working memory Flexibility | 1. Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf ep 10 (high-fantasy) 2. Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf ep 57 (mid-fantasy) 3. Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf ep 20 (low-fantasy) | Parent Questionnaires Peabody Picture Vocabulary test | Inhibitory control: • NIH Toolbox FICA test Working memory: • NIH Toolbox LSWM Flexibility: • NIH Toolbox DCCS | Negative effect of mid-fantasy TV programs on inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility No immediate effect of fantasy on working memory | 18/21 |
Kostyrka-Allchorne et al. [39] | n = 187 3.5- to 5-year-olds | Pace and Fantasy | 5–6 min | Inhibitory control | 1. Narration of Room on the Broom book (fast and fantastical; edited version) 2. Narration of Room on the Broom book (slow and fantastical; edited version) 3. narration of Charlie and Lola book (fast and non-fantastical; edited version) 4. narration of Charlie and Lola book (slow and non-fantastical; edited version) | • Day/night task | • Day-night task | Positive effect of fantastical TV programs on inhibitory control, but no effect of pacing | 18/21 |
Rhodes et al. [10] | n = 80 5- to 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 23 min | Inhibitory control Working memory Flexibility Planning | 1. Little Einsteins (fantastical) 2. Little Bill (non-fantastical) | Parent Questionnaires Inhibitory control: • Day/night task Working memory: • Backward Digit Span Flexibility: • Standard Dimensional Change Card Sort Planning: • Tower of Hanoi | Inhibitory control: • Day/night task Working memory: • Backward Digit Span Flexibility: • Standard Dimensional Change Card Sort Planning: • Tower of Hanoi | Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory No immediate effect of fantasy on planning | 17/21 |
Li et al. [41] | Study 1: n = 90 4- to 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 18–19 min | Cool EF | 1. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (non-fantastical) 2. Tom and Jerry (fantastical) 3. Usual classroom activities | Parent Questionnaires | • Day/night task • Backward Digit Span • Flexible item section | Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on EF | 16/21 |
Study 2: n = 20 4- to 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 18–19 min | Cool EF | 1. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (non-fantastical) 2. Tom and Jerry (fantastical) | Parent Questionnaires | • Day/night task • Backward Digit Span • Flexible item section | Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on EF Eye tracker: more but shorter eye fixations in the fantastical condition | 16/21 | |
Study 3: n = 20 4- to 6-year-olds | Fantasy | 18–19 min | Cool EF | 1. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (non-fantastical) 2. Tom and Jerry (fantastical) | Parent Questionnaires | • Day/night task • Backward Digit Span • Flexible item section | Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on EF fNIRS: higher Coxy-Hb in PFC in fantastical condition | 16/21 | |
Fan et al. [27] | n = 218 4- to 7-year-olds | Pace and Fantasy | 11 min | Inhibitory control Working memory Flexibility | 1. SpongeBob (fast-paced and fantastical) 2. Tom and Jerry (slow-paced and fantastical) 3. Boonie Bear (fast-paced and non-fantastical) 4. Big Head Son and Little Head Father (slow-paced and non-fantastical) | Parent Questionnaires | Inhibitory control: • Day/night Stroop task Working memory: • Backward Digit Span Flexibility: • Flexible item section | No immediate effect of pacing Negative effect of fantastical TV programs on inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory Age x fantasy interaction has a significant effect on inhibitory control | 19/21 |
Rose et al. [29] | n = 41 3- and 4-year-olds | Pace | 15 min | Problem-solving | Postman Pat: 1. Postman Pat ep Postman Pat and the Robot (slow-paced) 2. Postman Pat ep Flying Christmas Stocking (fast-paced) | Parent Questionnaires | • Block Buddies | No immediate effect of pacing on problem-solving | 18/21 |
Wang and Moriguchi [43] | n = 32 3- to 6.5-year-olds | Fantasy | 5 min | Flexibility | 1. Dr. Panda in Space videoclip (fantastical) 2. Dr. Panda in Space game (fantastical) | • Standard Dimensional Change Card Sort | • Standard Dimensional Change Card Sort | No immediate effect of fantasy on flexibility fNIRS: No immediate effect of fantasy on the brain | 15/21 |