Tech's Brain Effect: It's Complicated

We don't yet know what the immersion in technology does to our brains, but one neuroscientist says the answer is likely to be that there's good, there's bad, and it's complex.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Clearly, technology is helping us research the brain, but how is the brain responding to technology?”

NYU neuroscientist Alexandra Ochoa Cohen.

“There’s been a lot of mostly negative hype around this issue, often referred to as screen time, and how it’s ruining all of our lives. And while there’ve been a few studies that have examined these questions, the truth is that everything we encounter changes our brains. And we just don’t have the data right now to say how meaningful these changes actually are.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Cohen spoke March 21st, at the Cooper Union in Manhattan, during a discussion called Our Brain on A.I. [Artificial Intelligence]: Who’s In Control, Me or the Machine?  

“In fact, a recent study examining over 350,000 adolescents found a small but negative association with technology use and well-being, but they also found similar relationships between eating potatoes and wearing eyeglasses and well-being. And yet we don’t ask if potatoes and eyeglasses have destroyed a generation.”

That study, titled “The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use,” appeared this January in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

“Part of the issue in studying how technology influences our brain is that there are so many different forms of technology that often all get lumped into one category. So how we use technology, what specific technology we use, and what we use it for will be important variables to define in future research.

“And even as we do more and better research on these topics, the answer is still likely to be that it’s complicated. In a way, we’re all part of a massive experiment in how technology is influencing our brains, and there will almost certainly be both positive and negative outcomes. So studies that track individuals’ behavioral and brain development over time will be particularly important. Like the ABCD, or Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study, which is currently following over 10,000 kids for 10 years. And this kind of research will be especially important in helping us to figure out what lasting influences technology has on our brains.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe