ABSTRACT
Aim
The differences between parent–child joint attention while reading together from a screen versus from a paper are unknown. The current study aimed to determine if parent–child brains synchronise differently during screen‐based versus printed paper‐based, in other words, a book reading.
Methods
The study was carried out in 2022 in Israel. Cohorts were recruited via posted ads. Cognitive and behavioural measures were assessed using standardised tests. In addition, two reading sessions were administered by the parent, one on the screen and another using a book, while electroencephalograph data captured their brain synchronisation. The difference in brain synchronisation between the conditions was correlated with behavioural measures.
Results
Of the 49 parent–child pairs age 3.94 years ± 0.751; 24 females who participated in language‐based tasks for this study, electroencephalograph data from 11 dyads showed a higher brain‐to‐brain synchronisation during printed‐based reading compared to screen‐based reading was found and associated with the child's verbal and cognitive abilities.
Conclusion
Printed‐paper reading fosters a higher parent–child neural synchronisation and cognitive engagement compared to screen‐based reading.
Keywords: Brain synchronisation, Parent–child joint reading, Screen‐based joint reading
Abbreviation
- EEG
electroencephalogram
Summary.
The literature debates regarding the differential processing of stories read from a tablet versus a printed book.
Greater brain‐to‐brain parent–child synchronisation was found for the book versus tablet reading condition.
A printed book rather than tablet‐based reading is preferred for young children.
1. Introduction
A child interaction with its parents plays a crucial role in children's language and literacy development. Studies have demonstrated that both the quantity and quality of interactions between parents and children can significantly influence children's language abilities, early literacy skills and future academic achievement [1, 2]. Parent–child interactions around literacy have been found to have a positive impact on children's literacy development and the overall child's well‐being [3]. Creating a rich home literacy environment can greatly benefit young children from birth to 5 years [4]. Exposure to literature materials like books, magazines and newspapers can significantly impact children's reading motivation, writing interest, vocabulary expansion and academic performance [4]. With the shift to online learning, there is a greater need to emphasise the importance of the home literacy environment, including reading, in supporting children's educational and developmental needs. One possible approach is creating a home setting rich in written materials such as books, magazines and newspapers. Such a home setting has been found to significantly impact children's reading motivation, writing interest, vocabulary expansion and academic performance [4, 5]. Although in slightly older children, six children showed a greater attention overload when they read from a computer screen versus from a printed paper [6]. This attention overload measured using an EEG system was explained by a more shallow processing and a greater effort to allocate attention to the content of the written material manifested by higher theta/beta relations in the electrophysiological data [6]. In another study, the existence of a smartphone, while children aged 6–8 t years performed a simple reaction time task, was related to a greater cognitive effort manifested by greater event‐related potential amplitudes for this condition [6]. Finally, children learning from a computer screen showed lower brain synchronisation between participants than those learning face‐to‐face [7]. Joint media engagement, however, is a process where children are engaged in media use with their parents [8], which was found to be an engaging environment for interaction between parents and children [9]. The joint use of media was found to be highly affected by the instruction amongst preschoolers' three‐ to five‐year‐old children [8]. This study demonstrated a greater engagement across cultures when explicit instruction for engagement was given [8]. On the other hand, higher screen use amongst children was positively correlated to the quality of joint media engagement with their parents [10]. These results pointed to the importance of familiarity with media to be able to gain from the joint media engagement activity [10]. Taken together, these studies point to a greater cognitive load in conditions involving screen use versus face‐to‐face or printed paper in children. Therefore, a question arises related to this cognitive effort when parents tell their children stories from a screen versus from a printed book. It also points, however, to the possible positive aspects of joint media engagement with the parent when jointly using electronics. One of the approaches to determining this quality of interaction and joint attention during parent–child reading using a hyperscanning method [11, 12].
Hyperscanning is an advanced method that allows a concurrent measurement of brain activity in two or more individuals involved in social interactions [13]. Several studies that examined parent–child relations/interactions using hyperscanning method revealed a significant brain‐to‐brain synchronisation during social interactions [14]. These interactions included joint attention tasks, cooperative activities and emotional communication [14]. The synchronisation in brain activity between the parent and the child underscores the importance of parent–child engagement in fostering social understanding and the child's development [7, 15]. Several studies have pointed to the different levels of attention engagement while using screens versus printed paper [6, 7, 16]. Therefore, the current research aims to uncover brain‐to‐brain synchronisation during parent–child communication while reading a story via screen (tablet) or printed book.
Despite the reported positive effect of parent–child interaction and home literacy environment on child linguistic abilities, the level of joint attention, in other words brain‐to‐brain parent–child synchronisation during screen based versus printed‐paper reading, is yet to be clear. It is also unknown how this difference in joint attention during reading is related to environmental stimuli like home literacy environment and the child's cognitive abilities. Hence, this study aims to determine the relationship between home literacy environment and parent–child interaction during reading from the screen versus from a paper using EEG. We hypothesised that higher brain‐to‐brain synchronisation would be found during paper‐based reading than during screen‐based reading. We also hypothesised that this greater synchronisation during paper‐based reading would be related to higher literacy and cognitive skills in the child.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The study included 49 dyads, all native‐speaking Hebrew‐speaking participants, mean age: 3.94 years ± 0.751, age range: 3–5 years, 25 males, completed behavioural and cognitive testing. Amongst them, 11 dyads' mean age: 4.1 ± 0.782, seven females, also completed EEG data collection. All participants were typically developing individuals without any neurological, developmental or psychiatric disorders.
2.2. Study Procedure
Children were assessed for their linguistic and cognitive abilities and were then invited to the lab for an EEG testing session. During the EEG session, children and parents participated in a hyperscannnig session under two reading conditions: printed book and screen‐based. Each reading session was approximately 5 min long, and the conditions were counterbalanced. Both stories were equally longs.
2.3. Behavioural Measures
Language ability was evaluated using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [17, 18]. The verbal speed of processing was assessed using the object naming and number naming tasks [19, 20]. Literacy skills were measured using the Shatil Literacy Seed [20]. Executive functions were evaluated using the Colours and Switching Inhibition Animals [21]. Working memory was assessed using the digit span task from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fourth edition [22].
2.4. Electrophysiological Measures
The study used a 64‐EEG cap system (Brain Products, Gliching, Germany) was employed in the study using a dual‐cap setup involves placing 32 electrodes each on both the maternal and the child's scalp, 31 electrodes used for recording and one electrode used for referencing [6, 7]. Such arrangements ensure the synchronised recording of neural responses, which is crucial for analysing interactive cognitive processes. This system possibly used advanced EEG technologies, such as dry electrode caps, which do not require conductive gels and are known for their ease of use and comfort during extended monitoring periods [6, 7].
The EEG data was synchronised across the two sets, preprocessed to reduce noise and artefacts through band‐pass filtering and Independent Component Analysis and analysed using circular correlation methods. These steps enabled the examination of synchronisation between corresponding electrodes, providing insights into the neural connectivity during different tasks [6].
2.5. Electrophysiological Conditions
Several EEG conditions were administered to each parent–child dyad. The first is a printed book reading condition. In this condition, both the parent and child actively engage in printed book reading. This interactive dialogic reading experience involved reading the text and discussing the story, asking questions and examining the accompanying pictures. The parent and child interact dynamically, exchanging thoughts, ideas and interpretations of the story to foster a collaborative learning environment [23]. The second condition was a screen‐based reading. In this condition, both parent and child actively engaged in a tablet‐based book reading, similar to how they would read it from a printed book interactively and dialogically, as explained above. The story used for this condition was written by the same author and illustrator as the condition in the printed book condition. It was created by taking photos of pages from a printed book and uploading them to a tablet.
Brain synchronisation was determined by comparing the brain‐to‐brain synchronisation between the two conditions in the same group of participants.
2.6. Data Analysis
Means and standard deviations for each behavioural task were calculated for the full cohort (n = 49) from the 11 dyads who also participated in the EEG session.
The preprocessing of the EEG data involved several steps to ensure the quality and accuracy of the signals for analysis, following [6]. Initially, recorded EEG data using the BrainVision recorder tool were subjected to a series of preprocessing steps to remove noise and artefacts, starting from using filters such as Band Pass Filter with cutoff frequencies of 1 and 45 Hz, Notch filter with a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, etc. To eliminate frequency‐related noises related to electrical or muscle movements, a reference against an average for both maternal and child electrode sets is used to standardise signal comparison. Additional artefacts, such as heart rate and eye movements, were particularly addressed through Independent Component Analysis, a statistical method used to separate independent sources of signals.
Then, following the preprocessing steps, EEG data sets were subjected to epoch segmentation. The number of epochs is determined based on the temporal duration of the EEG signal, each representing a discrete time window for analysis; the segmentation allows for the detailed examination of EEG data in relation to specific events or stages of the parent–child interaction during a reading process.
2.7. Electrophysiological Data Post‐Processing
Once the EEG data were processed and segmented, we employed circular correlation analysis to quantify the level of neural synchrony between the parent and child dyads in each task. This technique, crucial for assessing the inter‐brain connections, involved comparing the EEG signals from corresponding electrodes on each individual's scalp to evaluate their synchronisation during the linguistic tasks. The circular correlation analysis method enabled the identification of synchronised brain activity patterns between the mother and child [6].
2.8. Parcellation of the Brain Topography
In order to calculate brain‐to‐brain synchronisation between regions in the parent and the child, per se [6], the electrode distribution was systematically organised to ensure accurate brain topography mapping, as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1.
The EEG electrode distribution. Thirty‐one EEG electrodes locations used for recording brain activity, positioned over different lobes of the brain, including the left frontal; Fp1, F7, F3, Fz, FC3, the left central; C3, the left temporal; FT7, T7, TP7, TP9, the left parietal; CP3, P7, P3, the right frontal; FP2, F8, F4, FC4, AFz, the right central; C3, Cz, the right temporal; FT8, T8, TP10, the right parietal: CP4, P8, P4 and the occipital region; O1, O2, O3 electrodes. L = Left, R = Right.
2.9. Join Attention During Book and Screen Reading
To determine the differences in joint attention levels for the two reading conditions, an algorithm also used and described, in [14] that determined the direction of the eyes' gaze of each participant per frame. This algorithm determined the number of times and the time the parent and the child were looking towards each other or to different directions, looking towards the same stimulus or one looking at the other while the other is looking at a different direction. The percentage of eyes' gaze condition of the overall number of frames for each interaction video was calculated and compared to the other condition using a paired‐t‐test analysis.
2.10. Correlations Between Electrophysiological and Behavioural Measure
A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between the differences in brain‐to‐brain synchronisation in the two study conditions (i.e., printed‐book vs. screen based reading) in the brain regions outlined in Figure 1 in the parent and the child and the behavioural measurement associated with the child's literacy and cognitive measures.
2.11. Ethics
The Technion's institutional review board approved the study (protocol number 882020). Parents provided written informed consents.
3. Results
3.1. Behavioural Measures
The full cohort of children participating in the study (n = 49) demonstrated language skills within the normal range. See Table 1 for the mean and standard deviation for the full cohort. Forty‐nine children participated in the behavioural data acquisition phase, and 11 children of this cohort also participated in the EEG testing session. Independent t‐test analyses demonstrated equal behavioural results to the full cohort (Table 1). The cognitive and behavioural results for the sub‐sample of 11 children represented the behavioural profile of the full cohort (see Tables S1 and S2).
TABLE 1.
Mean and SD for the behavioural measures of the 11 children who performed the EEG testing.
| Ability | Measures | Mean (SD) | Min‐max | T (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language | Peabody Verbal Test, correct responses, accuracy (percentages) | 27.23 (17.86) | 9.87–45.09 | −0.86 (0.644) |
| Peabody Verbal Test, correct responses, Time (seconds) | 208.09 (88.41) | 296.13–119.68 | −0.426 (0.673) | |
| Shatil, Naming objects, correct responses (raw) | 20.86 (0.35) | 20–21 | −0.373 (0.71) | |
| Shatil, Naming objects, Time (seconds) | 58.7 (25.99) | 32–84.7 | 0.69 (0.495) | |
| Naming numbers, accuracy (percent) | 93.57 (8.88) | 84.6–102.4 | 0.373 (0.716) | |
| Naming numbers, performance time (seconds) | 125.8 (56.32) | 69–182 | −0.373 (0.71) | |
| Naming objects, Time, (stimuli per minute) | 27.44 (10.9) | 16.5–38.3 | 2.29 (0.03) | |
| Naming objects, (accuracy percent) | 99.33 (1.6) | 97.73–100.93 | −0.46 (0.65) | |
| Literacy skills | Shatil, literacy seed (percentage) | 56.25 (26.5) | 29.75–82.75 | 1.69 (0.11) |
| Executive functions | Digits‐span, working memory (raw) | 4.00 (1.03) | 1.00–5.00 | 1.47 (0.16) |
| Switching inhibition colours, accuracy (raw) | 27.38 (5.95) |
21.4–33.3 |
−1.48 (0.15) | |
| Switching inhibition animals, accuracy (raw) | 29.03 (1.76) | 27.27–30.79 | 0.7 (0.495) |
3.2. Electrophysiological Results
The correlation matrices for the 11 dyads for each condition separately demonstrated higher correlation coefficients for the printed book reading condition compared to the screen‐based condition (see Figure 2). Paired t‐tests were used to compare the correlation coefficients between the two EEG conditions. Significant differences between the two conditions (book‐reading vs. screen reading) were observed for the differences between correlation coefficient values for several parent–child electrode pairs between the parent's left frontal and child's right temporal regions; the maternal right frontal and the child's left frontal regions and the parent's right frontal and the child left temporal regions (See Figure 3 and Table S1 for the correlation coefficient values).
FIGURE 2.
Correlation coefficient matrices for the parent's electrodes (X‐axis) versus the child's electrodes (Y‐axis) for the book‐based reading (a, upper figure) versus the screen based reading (b, lower figure). The EEG electrodes are plotted along the child's vertical axis and the parent's horizontal axis. The colour gradient, ranging from blue to yellow, represents the correlation values between the corresponding electrode pairs, with blue indicating lower correlation values (r = 0.14) and yellow indicating higher correlation values (r = 0.24).
FIGURE 3.
Differences in correlation coefficient matrices between the two EEG conditions: The book‐based reading versus the screen‐based reading (p‐value < 0.05) for the parent (X‐axis) and the child (Y‐axis).
3.3. A Comparison of Joint Attention During the Book Reading Versus Screen Reading
Significantly higher joint attention percentages were found for the book reading versus screen reading condition. Higher non‐joint attention scores (children and parents not looking in similar directions) were found for the screen reading condition. Results are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
Paired t‐test results for the comparison between joint attention percentages for the two study conditions: Book reading versus screen reading.
| Mode | Conditions | Book reading Mean (SD) | Screen reading Mean (SD) | T (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint attention | The parent and the child are looking at each other (percent) | 25.21 (1.63) | 16.75 (2.92) | 8.76 (< 0.001) |
| The parent and the child are looking at the same place (percent) | 28.73 (0.97) | 21.52 (1.18) | 13.20 (< 0.001) | |
| Non‐joint attention | The parent looking at the child (percent) | 17.15 (1.03) | 19.91 (1.35) | −4.27 (< 0.01) |
| The child looking at the parent (percent) | 14.62 (0.69) | 18.09 (1.74) | −5.06 (< 0.001) | |
| The parent and the child are looking at a different place (percent) | 14.29 (1.39) | 24.75 (0.96) | −15.40 (< 0.001) |
Note: Joint attention percentages (i.e., the parent and the child are looking at each other and the parent and the child are looking at the same place) and non‐joint attention phases during the book reading condition versus the screen reading condition. Means and standard deviations are noted within the table.
3.4. Correlations Between the Electrophysiological and Behavioural Measures
The difference in correlation coefficient values between the two EEG conditions was exported and associated with behavioural measures. The EEG data included the parental left frontal and child's right temporal regions, the parental right frontal and the child's left frontal regions and the parental right frontal and the child's left temporal regions. The average values of the difference in synchronisation between the two conditions were correlated with the behavioural measurements using bivariate correlation analyses. The results demonstrated positive correlations between the parental left frontal region and the child's right temporal region and higher scores in the digits memory task (r = 0.92, p = 0.027). Positive correlations between the parental right frontal region and the child's left frontal region and accuracy level for the naming objects task (r = 0.675, p = 0.046). Furthermore, significant correlations between the parental right frontal region and the child's left temporal region and accuracy scores for the naming objects task were found (r = 0.724, p = 0.028). These results suggested that a greater synchronisation between the parent and the child for book‐reading versus screen reading in those specific brain regions was related to better literacy and executive function scores in the child. See Table 3.
TABLE 3.
Pearson correlations between the difference in correlation coefficient for the two EEG conditions and the child's behavioural measures.
| Brain regions for the parent vs. Child | Behavioural measure | Pearson correlation (r, p) |
|---|---|---|
| Left frontal vs. right temporal | Executive functions (digit‐ span, maximum number of digits) | 0.92 (0.027) |
| Right frontal vs. left frontal | Naming objects Shatil (accuracy) | 0.675 (0.046) |
| Right frontal vs. left temporal | Naming objects Shatil (accuracy) | 0.724 (0.028) |
Note: Pearson correlations for the difference in correlation coefficient values between the two EEG conditions and behavioural measures and included the parent's left frontal and child's right temporal regions, the maternal right frontal and the child's left frontal regions and the parent's right frontal and the child's left temporal regions. Correlation (r) and significance (p) values are noted in the right‐handed columns.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in parent–child brain‐to‐brain synchronisation during two types of reading sessions: printed‐books condition and screen‐based condition. Using the hyperscanning approach, the results of the current study revealed significantly greater brain‐to‐brain synchronisation in the printed book condition versus the screen‐ based reading.
This increased synchronisation was particularly prominent in the frontal and temporal regions of both parents and children and was significantly correlated with higher literacy and executive function scores of the child. These results are discussed in light of the differences in EEG results between the two study conditions and the importance of parent–child joint reading to the development of literacy and executive function skills.
The results of the current study demonstrated that during printed book reading, higher brain‐to‐brain synchronisation and greater joint attention levels between parents and children are observed when compared to screen‐based reading. Specifically, there were greater synchronisation values in the left frontal region of the parent's brain and the right temporal region of the child's brain during printed‐book reading. This enhanced neural connection was associated with improved performance in memory tasks for children. Additionally, higher synchronisation between the right frontal region of the parent and both the left frontal and left temporal regions of the child was linked to better language skills.
In addition, while convenient, screen‐based reading offers a different and potentially less effective dynamic despite the reported benefits of joint media engagement [8, 9]. The digital nature of screens introduces several factors that can disrupt the quality of parent–child interactions. For instance, the interactive elements of screens can distract children, making it harder to maintain joint attention and meaningful verbal interactions. Our study observed lower brain‐to‐brain synchronisation during screen‐based reading, indicating that this format may not foster the same level of cognitive and emotional engagement as printed books. However, no explicit engagement instructions were given in any of the two conditions in the current study. If an explicit set of instructions had been given in the screen‐based reading condition, a higher synchronisation would have been found, as reported previously in relation to joint media engagement [9]. Any further studies should examine this point in‐depth.
One reason for this difference could be the sensory experience provided by screens versus printed books. Printed books engage multiple senses such as touch, sight, and sometimes even the smell of paper, which may enhance the reading experience and help sustain attention. Screens, on the other hand, provide a more limited sensory experience during shared book reading when there are no animated, moving illustrations prompting touch. Moreover, screens can introduce additional interruptions, such as flickering lights, notifications and other digital distractions, which can break the flow of the story and reduce the depth of engagement. The blue light emitted by screens may also cause visual strain, further detracting from the immersive experience that a printed book can provide. In the current study, no notifications or deliberate distractions were used. However, the possible expectations for such notifications may have led to a reduced cognitive focus and engagement. This potential for distraction, even in the absence of actual interruptions, highlights the subtle yet significant ways in which screen‐based reading environments can alter the quality of the reading experience compared to traditional printed materials [6]. Previous research has supported these findings, showing that screens can alter brain activation patterns and potentially diminish the quality of parent–child interactions [6]. The combination of reduced sensory stimulation, frequent interruptions and the passive nature of screen interaction likely contribute to less focused and meaningful engagement during screen‐based reading. As a result, screen‐based reading might not support cognitive and language development as effectively as traditional printed books.
Parent–child joint reading plays a critical role in the development of literacy and executive function skills in children. Research has consistently shown that the quality and quantity of reading interactions between parents and children significantly influence children's language abilities, early literacy skills and future academic achievements [1, 2]. Joint reading sessions are more than just a reading activity; they are interactive experiences where parents and children engage in meaningful conversations about the story. This interaction is crucial for developing children's vocabulary, comprehension and critical‐thinking skills. The dialogic reading approach, where parents ask questions and encourage children to discuss the story, has significantly boosted language development and reading skills [24].
Children who participate in regular joint reading sessions with their parents tend to develop stronger literacy skills [13, 25]. These sessions expose children to a richer vocabulary and more complex sentence structures than they might encounter in everyday conversations. Studies have found that children raised in homes with ample reading materials and frequent reading activities perform better in literacy tasks and have a more extensive vocabulary [13, 25].
The process of listening to a story, predicting what will happen next, and discussing the characters' actions all contribute to developing these cognitive skills. Our research supports this by showing that greater neural synchronisation between parents and children during printed book reading correlates with better performance on tasks requiring working memory and cognitive flexibility. The body of research supporting the benefits of parent–child joint reading is extensive. For instance, Hutton [26] demonstrated that children who engage in interactive reading sessions show increased cerebellar activation and connectivity, which are linked to better cognitive and literacy outcomes. Kraus [7] found that maternal reading fluency positively influenced brain connectivity in children, enhancing their executive functions and language processing. Furthermore, interruptions by media were already reported to reduce brain‐to‐brain synchrony during joint reading, emphasising the importance of maintaining focused and interactive reading sessions for optimal cognitive development [6].
The observed differences in synchronisation patterns between reading formats highlight the potential impact of screen‐based reading on parent–child interactions. While screens offer convenience and accessibility, they may not foster the same neural engagement and interaction level as printed books. This finding is consistent with previous studies suggesting that screen‐based media can alter brain activation patterns and potentially diminish the quality of parent–child interactions.
4.1. Limitations
This study had several limitations that should be considered. First, the sample size for the EEG data collection was relatively small (n = 11 dyads), which may limit the generalisability of the findings. Future studies should include larger and more diverse samples to validate and extend these results. Second, the study only assessed the short‐term effects of different reading formats. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore the long‐term impacts of printed book versus screen‐based reading on cognitive and language development in children. Also, the research question and hypothesis in the current study were related to the differences in brain‐to‐brain synchronisation in the two study's conditions. Although the electrodes were divided into sub‐brain regions similar to the method previously applied [14], we did not have an a priori hypothesis regarding which areas should be more aligned between parent and child. Finally, whether this change in brain‐to‐brain synchronisation between book and iPad‐based reading is related to the amount of their use at home is yet to be known and should be explored.
5. Conclusions
This study highlights the significant impact of reading format on parent–child brain‐to‐brain synchronisation. Reading printed materials appears to relate to a greater brain‐to‐brain synchronisation, which was previously associated with enhanced joint attention [6]. This joint attention is crucial for cognitive and language development in children [7, 16]. These findings contribute to our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying parent–child interactions and offer practical recommendations for fostering a literacy‐rich home environment.
Author Contributions
Fauzi Jomaa: investigation, writing – original draft, visualization, methodology, validation, writing – review and editing, software, formal analysis. Fatma Ebraheem: investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, validation, visualization, formal analysis. Tzipi Horowitz‐Kraus: conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – original draft, validation, visualization, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, project administration, supervision, resources.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Tables S1–S2.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
References
- 1. Hart B. and Risley T. R., “Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children,” Community Alternatives 8 (1996): 92–93. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Rowe M. L., “A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role of Quantity and Quality of Child‐Directed Speech in Vocabulary Development,” Child Development 83, no. 5 (2012): 1762–1774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Reimers F., Schleicher A., Saavedra J., and Tuominen S., “Supporting the Continuation of Teaching and Learning During the COVID‐19 Pandemic,” OECD 1, no. 1 (2020): 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Snow D., Cress D., Downey L., and Jones A., “Disrupting the" Quotidian": Reconceptualizing the Relationship Between Breakdown and the Emergence of Collective Action,” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 3, no. 1 (1998): 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Shanahan T. and Neuman S. B., “Literacy Research That Makes a Difference,” Reading Research Quarterly 32, no. 2 (1997): 202–210. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Zivan M., Gashri C., Habuba N., and Horowitz‐Kraus T., “Reduced Mother‐Child Brain‐to‐Brain Synchrony During Joint Storytelling Interaction Interrupted by a Media Usage,” Child Neuropsychology 28, no. 7 (2022): 918–937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Horowitz‐Kraus T., Hutton J. S., Phelan K., and Holland S. K., “Maternal Reading Fluency Is Positively Associated With Greater Functional Connectivity Between the Child's Future Reading Network and Regions Related to Executive Functions and Language Processing in Preschool‐Age Children,” Brain and Cognition 121 (2018): 17–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Yen K., Chen Y., Cheng Y., et al., “Joint Media Engagement Between Parents and Preschoolers in the US, China, and Taiwan,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human‐Computer Interaction 2 (2018): 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Martinez J. J., Windleharth T. W., Li Q., et al., “Joint Media Engagement in Families Playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons During the COVID‐19 Pandemic,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human‐Computer Interaction 6, no. CSCW1 (2022): 1–22.37360538 [Google Scholar]
- 10. Maddox H. S., A Correlation Study on Young Children's Screen Time and Joint Media Engagement in the Home (La Jolla, California: Northcentral University, 2023). [Google Scholar]
- 11. Montague P. R., Berns G. S., Cohen J. D., et al., “Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI During Linked Social Interactions,” NeuroImage 16 (2002): 1159–1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Read K., Gaffney G., Chen A., and Imran A., “The Impact of COVID‐19 on Families' Home Literacy Practices With Young Children,” Early Childhood Education Journal 50, no. 8 (2022): 1429–1438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Sénéchal M. and LeFevre J. A., “Parental Involvement in the Development of Children's Reading Skill: A Five‐Year Longitudinal Study,” Child Development 73, no. 2 (2002): 445–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Zivan M., Gashri C., Habuba N., and Horowitz‐Kraus T., “Reduced Mother‐Child Brain‐to‐Brain Synchrony During Joint Storytelling Interaction Interrupted by a Media Usage,” Child Neuropsychology 28 (2022): 1–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kraus T. H. and Breznitz Z., “Can the Error Detection Mechanism Benefit From Training the Working Memory? A Comparison Between Dyslexics and Controls—An ERP Study,” PLoS One 4, no. 9 (2009): e7141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Farah R., Zivan M., Niv L., Havron N., Hutton J., and Horowitz‐Kraus T., “High Screen Use by Children Aged 12–36 Months During the First COVID‐19 Lockdown Was Associated With Parental Stress and Screen Use,” Acta Paediatrica 110, no. 10 (2021): 2808–2809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Castellino S. M., Tooze J. A., Flowers L., and Parsons S. K., “The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test as a Pre‐Screening Tool for Global Cognitive Functioning in Childhood Brain Tumor Survivors,” Journal of Neuro‐Oncology 104 (2011): 559–563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Dunn L. M. and Dunn D. M., Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Circle Pines, MN: NCS Pearson Inc, 2007). [Google Scholar]
- 19. Shatil E., One‐Minute Test for Pseudowords. Unpublished Test (Haifa: University of Haifa, 1995). [Google Scholar]
- 20. Shatil E., Shatil Test for the Assessment of Early Childhood Literacy (Haifa, Israel: Ach Publishers, 2000). [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ziv Y., Animals and Colors Inhibition/Switching Test. Unpublished Test (Haifa: University of Haifa, 2017). [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wechsler D., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth ed. (San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 2003). [Google Scholar]
- 23. Twait E., Farah R., Shamir N., and Horowitz‐Kraus T., “Dialogic Reading vs. Screen Exposure Intervention Is Related to Increased Cognitive Control in Preschool‐Age Children,” Acta Paediatrica 108, no. 11 (2019): 1993–2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Whitehurst G. J. and Lonigan C. J., “Child Development and Emergent Literacy,” Child Development 69, no. 3 (1998): 848–872. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Mol S. E. and Bus A. G., “To Read or Not to Read: A Meta‐Analysis of Print Exposure From Infancy to Early Adulthood,” Psychological Bulletin 137, no. 2 (2011): 267–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hutton J. S., Phelan K., Horowitz‐Kraus T., et al., “Story Time Turbocharger? Child Engagement During Shared Reading and Cerebellar Activation and Connectivity in Preschool‐Age Children Listening to Stories,” PLoS One 12, no. 5 (2017): e0177398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Tables S1–S2.