Neurobiology of Autism / Early Screen Addiction Recovery

Stoyan R. Vezenkov and Violeta R. Manolova

Center for applied neuroscience Vezenkov, BG-1582, Sofia, e-mail: info@vezenkov.com

For citation: Vezenkov, S.R. and Manolova V.R. (2025b) Neurobiology of Autism/Early Screen Addiction Recovery. Nootism 1(1), 19-36, ISSN 3033-1765

*This paper was presented by Dr. Stoyan Vezenkov at the Second Science Conference "Screen Children" on November 23, 2024, in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Abstract

The number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is skyrocketing every year, and the trend shows no signs of slowing down. Such an exponential rise cannot be explained by genetics alone – only environmental factors can account for this public health crisis. This study presents clear evidence that early screen addiction (0–3 years) can cause severe neurodevelopmental disorders that fully mimic ASD symptoms. However, if screen addiction and the developmental damage it causes – both in the child and the family dynamic – are treated properly and on time, full recovery was possible.

A total of 118 children (82 boys, 36 girls), aged 2–12, were treated for severe early screen addiction at our center using a six–month intensive therapy, followed by 12 months of monitoring. The therapy was family–centered, addressing both the child’s and the parents’ neurophysiological, affective and behavioral states. The child–focused therapy included total screen detox and: (1) Sensorimotor restart; (2) Restoration of sleep quality and duration; (3) "Cortical awakening" through the six stages of functional system maturation, including selective disinhibition; (4) Neutralization of antihuman animalistic control and dominance programs; (5) Restoration of parent–child attachment; (6) Initiation of language development. Parental therapy included: (1) Biofeedback neurotraining for autonomic balance restoration; (2) Neurotherapy for anxiety, depression, and addiction; (3) Neurotherapy for trauma, toxic stress and pathological attachment styles; (4) Strengthening the nervous system’s capacity for stress management; (5) Establishing a secure attachment style; (6) Comprehensive training for parents on their child’s recovery process and their role in it.

Results were groundbreaking: 73 children (61.9%) fully recovered, with complete elimination of ASD symptoms and a sustained trajectory of normal development. The therapy dropout rate was high (23.7%), and a detailed analysis of the profiles of these parents is discussed in the study. The boys–to–girls ratio (2.28) remained consistent across recovery, showing that both sexes responded equally to the intervention.

Original tests, observations, and explanations were developed and presented in this study to deepen the understanding of these six foundational pillars, ensuring that therapy for early screen addiction remains effective until full recovery is achieved. These insights were derived largely through an intuitive, heuristic, and human–centered approach.

If all six aspects of therapy were not thoroughly addressed and effectively treated in both children and parents, recovery remained incomplete. This explains why conventional ASD therapies consistently fail – their ineffectiveness reinforces the ASD diagnosis instead of challenging it.

We are facing a neurological crisis. Early screen addiction is rewiring developing brains, shutting down social engagement, destroying language development, and triggering compulsive, repetitive behaviors that are indistinguishable from ASD. The most terrifying part? Parents, pediatricians, and therapists are being told these children are “born this way” and that ASD is a lifelong, untreatable condition – when in reality, all are simply trapped in a cycle of addiction–induced neurodevelopmental damage.

If we do not act now, we will create an entire generation of neurologically impaired children who will never fully integrate into society. The solution is clear: strict policies to eliminate screen exposure in early childhood (up to 9 years), intensive intervention for affected children and their families, and an urgent reevaluation of the ASD diagnosis – replacing it with early screen addiction. This shift will spark a wave of scientific research that will not only confirm our findings but also revolutionize our understanding of psychotic disorders.

This study demands a paradigm shift. Early screen addiction is not a minor issue. It is a full–blown public health emergency that must be confronted before we permanently alter the future of human neurodevelopment.

Keywords: Early screen addiction, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), neurodevelopmental disorders, screen detox therapy, screen trauma therapy, biofeedback, child–parents attachment, public health crisis

Instead of an Introduction

This journey began when we set out to find solutions for families with children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), whom we initially assessed only functionally. During these assessments, it became clear that in 99% of cases, the children exhibited a severe form of early screen addiction.

However, some children had undergone a complete screen detox for extended periods – 3, 6, even 12 months – yet showed little to no significant improvement. At the same time, we observed an almost equal number of cases where screen detox alone led to remarkable progress in the child's condition. The literature was filled with similarly conflicting data.

It wasn’t until we began developing a comprehensive therapeutic approach that real solutions started to emerge – unique to each child and family, yet systematic enough to study and categorize. It started with 12 children. Then, there were hundreds.

The human in me braced for yet another tantrum from the small being before me, overtaken by anti–human programs of control and dominance. Each time, I saw the same terror in the parents’ eyes – a mix of guilt, blame, denial, despair, helplessness, and, most terrifying of all, hopelessness.

After the first restarts, the children looked at us with new eyes, as if, for the first time after a long absence, they could truly see me, and their mother, and the world around them. But it didn’t last long – soon, they would slip back into an endless cycle of compulsive behavior that no longer needed screens or songs to sustain itself.

Yet, this gave birth to hope – the hope that there was a way forward.

Every attempt to pull them out of their world and bring them back into ours was met with a hysterical, aggressive, or self–aggressive episode, an outburst designed to make us give up, to push us away, while at the same time screaming, "Leave me, leave me… save me!"

One of the greatest challenges was finding a way to neutralize the deeply ingrained programs of dominance and control, deeply embedded in the children and steadily engulfing their entire families. The behaviors each child exhibited were so diverse and unique that they were difficult to categorize – pinching, biting, hitting others with their hands, striking their own face or head, exhibiting a 'primitive bilateral symmetrical reflex' (arching their back backward), throwing tantrums, screaming, shouting, crying, making animal–like sounds, walking on tiptoes, flapping their hands, grinding their teeth, and more. It was something like a tearless cry at the beginning of therapy, when the child was still "somewhere else," later transforming into a melancholic weeping with real tears – when they were finally present.

Gradually, parents learned to recognize when their child was slipping into compulsive, automatic behavior and when they were truly present – able, for the first time, to learn, to genuinely learn and develop, just as they had before encountering screens. Step by step, they became able to clearly distinguish between animalistic programs of dominance and control and the attentive, exploratory behavior necessary for learning. But for this to happen, parents themselves must be able to recognize, be present, and actively participate – not just act as taxi drivers, shuttling their child from one therapy session to another in a desperate attempt for change. This is why we began working therapeutically with parents as well. They are labeled in all sorts of ways – “refrigerator parents,” “helicopter parents” – various metaphors used to illustrate their supposed inability to connect with their child, often accompanied by excessive overprotection. But the truth can be different: children addicted to screens objectify their parents, and this is reflected in their behavior and condition. The insidious part is that once the addiction takes hold, it pulls everything into its vortex – development comes to a halt, family life freezes, shifting into an automatic, autopilot mode that dominates everyone. Most parents find themselves in an extremely fragile state, often exhibiting symptoms of generalized anxiety, burnout, chronic insomnia, and depression. Over time, many also develop severe addictions – most commonly screen–related ones. Fathers tend to struggle with gaming and pornography addiction, while mothers often become caught up in social media and video consumption. They, too, had begun using screen activities as a way to regulate their emotional states – a hallmark of addiction’s onset – thus completing the vicious cycle. Life had become a never-ending repetition of the same day, over and over, for years. Parents themselves require long–term therapy to restore their normal functioning and actively participate in their child’s recovery process. Therapy often reaches a dead end when one or both parents suffer from severe anxiety or depression, preventing them from properly reconnecting with their child as they begin to re–engage with life. This revealed another key factor in the recovery process – the development of a secure attachment style between parent and child. We don’t have time for years–long therapy. Within a few months, the child begins to re–engage, and they need to be met by someone without a trace of fear or anxiety – but with hope and love, someone who will say, "I will never leave you again!" And that someone, besides the therapist, must be their mother and father. All our therapists undergo supervision and personal neurotherapy to ensure they approach children and parents with high HRV (heart rate variability) – a key factor in fostering a secure attachment style and activating mirror neuron systems. This is why biofeedback neurotherapy with both parents and therapists plays a key role in monitoring and training functional patterns that help establish a secure and effective attachment – first to the therapist and then to the parent.

Screen exposure in young children overstimulates primarily two sensory pathways – visual and auditory – while all others are reciprocally and persistently inhibited. The moment exposure ends, a powerful disinhibition follows, manifesting either as hyperactive automatic behavior or complete shutdown and hypoactivity. In the latter case, during recovery, the child will inevitably go through a phase of hyperactivity. The uneven stimulation of sensory systems and their conditioning to perceive uniform or repetitive stimuli competes with and replaces the natural adaptation of all sensory systems to the constantly changing stimuli from the environment and other people. We often tell parents that, compared to a children's song played 100 times on a device – always sounding exactly the same – a song sung by the mother 100 times will never be the same stimulus. Each time, it will be different and, therefore, neurodevelopmentally enriching, because life itself is unique and constantly changing. This is precisely why children accustomed to repetitive, unchanging stimulation often run to cover their mothers' mouths when they try to sing their favorite song. This is a clear sign of addiction to auditory and/or visual stimuli from devices, completely replacing speech or singing from real people. In other words, the fundamental psychophysiological principle does not apply to children with screen addiction. Since none of the sensory systems are properly tuned to or responsive to changes in their respective stimuli, it is only natural that these children seek a static environment, engage in stereotypical behaviors, and repeat automatisms that evolve spontaneously over time. The same applies to the object of addiction. Once a child's entire sensory and motor activity becomes rigid and repetitive, screen exposure is no longer necessary to sustain their addictive functioning – it simply shifts to a new compulsion that dominates their focus for a certain period. There is an extensive list of examples – spinning wheels, turning the head side to side, fixating on a specific point from a certain angle, spinning objects or toys, waving colorful pictures or toys back and forth, watching spinning, glowing, or sound–producing objects, staring at lamps, traffic lights, or bright toy lights, rapidly moving fingers in front of the eyes, arranging puzzles, stacking blocks, lining up letters, numbers, or objects, and many more. The list is long, but all these behaviors share a common trait – constant stimulation of the visually and auditorily deprived sensory systems.

Gradually, this pattern will extend to other sensory systems – tactile, gustatory, olfactory, and vestibular – leading to repetitive stimulation, the development of automatisms and stereotypies, and an increasing resistance to change. Over time, this reinforces an addictive mode of functioning, driven by sensation–seeking and the need for immediate gratification.

It is strange why no one has considered the "typical symptoms of ASD" as patterns of addictive functioning. Depending on the age at which addiction develops, the nature of the impairments varies, but the overall pattern remains the same – development comes to a halt. Gradually, automatisms, ever–shifting obsessions, and compulsions take over the child's life – first affecting specific activities, then relationships, until it leads to complete deterioration. Just like any other addiction. On this point, researchers have reached a consensus, although the distinction between screen addiction and excessive screen use is still often blurred. The earlier addiction develops, the sooner development halts, leading to more severe impairments, symptoms, and diagnoses. When it occurs before the age of 2, the most common diagnoses include ASD, ADHD, severe language disorders, and various atypical developmental disorders. The misuse of the autism diagnosis has reached such an extreme that some psychiatrists diagnose it as early as age 2, convinced that the child will never recover. A summary of impairments based on the age of onset of screen addiction and its correlation with gender was presented in another publication (Vezenkov et al., 2025a).

Therapy for children up to the age of 9 involves a complete screen detox, something many parents could hardly imagine as possible. The reason is simple – screen devices are the only thing that seems to "calm" the child in the car, at a restaurant, in the doctor's office, or at the store. Without them, parents are confronted with the raw force of instinctual drives, ranging from explosive rage to the most calculated, patient, and manipulative tactics used to achieve their goal. Yet, in every case, the pattern is the same – a relentless pursuit of the coveted stimulation that defines their endlessly repeating day. Our experience shows that compromises do not work – even five minutes of screen exposure per day is enough to fully sustain and reinforce addictive functioning, regardless of the therapeutic interventions applied. In fact, the opposite occurs – all interventions become embedded within the framework of addictive behavior. Children turn into conditioning techniques that provide parents and therapists with a false sense of progress, while the underlying addiction remains intact. Most evidence–based therapeutic practices condition the child's behavior, gradually making it more socially acceptable by avoiding stimuli that cause frustration – including more significant challenges. However, this approach has the opposite effect when it comes to the full recovery of a child suffering from addiction. First, the addiction itself remains unaddressed, merely sustained through "minimal doses" of exposure each day. Second, this approach prevents the reversal of addiction’s impact on sensory–motor integration during the critical developmental period, making full recovery impossible. The daily "priming and/or framing," as described by Kahneman, is enough to activate infantile behavioral patterns that remain highly reinforced by the brain at the age when addiction first took hold. As shown elsewhere, behavioral patterns from the time of addiction onset persist for years, deeply ingrained in the brain and unable to integrate into later developmental stages. (Manolova et al., 2025) We referred to this as fragmentation – a condition in which different brain functions develop unevenly and fail to integrate, resulting in disintegration. Moreover, fragmentation in cortical functioning intensifies over time, becoming more severe the longer the addiction persists. This process has ultimately legitimized ASD as a diagnosis – an entirely artificial label for an unknown phenomenon, reinforced by fragmented and inadequate therapeutic approaches.

Here emerges yet another characteristic of early screen addiction – over time, symptoms accumulate and evolve, depending on the duration of addiction and, most importantly, the "anchor of development" – the age at which the addiction first took hold. The variations are endless, as a child's addictive behavior directly reflects the social environment they are in. To maintain access to their desired stimulation, they adapt in remarkably intelligent ways. Over time, addictive functioning becomes more complex, shifting from one focus to another. Interestingly, during recovery, previously forgotten behaviors often re–emerge in reverse order, resurfacing even after they seemed to have disappeared. On the surface, it may seem that the child is regressing. In reality, however, deeply buried, masked, but unintegrated infantile reflexes and behaviors from the early stages of addiction are resurfacing. It is as if the child had never fully experienced their own development and must return to the initial phases of addictive behavior, rewriting everything from the beginning – but this time in a new way. This phenomenon suggests that addictive functioning does not integrate existing automatisms but simply replaces them with new ones. Additional symptoms emerge as the body grows and develops. However, the onset of addiction imprints and reinforces all internal and external states and processes present at that time. As a result, the child often regresses to these earlier states or continues to exhibit them alongside newly emerging behaviors.

This imprint is reflected in dominant slow–wave frequencies in specific cortical regions, showing activity patterns characteristic of a much younger developmental stage. These biomarkers have been described and analyzed elsewhere (Vezenkov et al., 2025a).

This pattern resembles trauma–related functioning, which is why we refer to it as screen trauma (Manolova et al., 2025). The more persistent the symptoms, the deeper the trauma.

Non–Selective Inhibition and Selective Disinhibition

In normal child development, the maturation of each intrinsic connectivity network (Laird et al., 2011), along with all major functional systems – sensory, executive, attentional, affective, and memory networks – follows a sequential process driven by neurophysiological maturation mechanisms. These stages can be outlined as follows:

Subcortical primitive innate reflexes
Associative acquired reflexes
Generalized reactions
Non–selective inhibition
Selective disinhibition
Development of language, thinking, and self–awareness

This process enables full control over automatic and innate reflexes, allowing for continuous adaptation based not only on external stimuli but also on internal factors such as subjective experiences, abstract thinking, and the development of self–awareness.

Gradually, external regulation – driven by environmental stimuli – transforms into an autonomous ability for self–regulation. The primary role of the cortex in this process is both representational and inhibitory.

The selection and initiation of executive, affective, sensory, and memory processes rely on the involvement of the basal ganglia and thalamus. Through selective disinhibition, these cortico–subcortical executive loops enable goal–directed and socially adaptive behavior, supporting various forms of learning, including associative, instrumental, and mirror learning.

Wakefulness, reflected in beta and gamma rhythms, is regulated by two key mechanisms:

Non–selective inhibition of the cortex, mediated by GABA neurons.
Selective disinhibition within executive loops, involving the basal ganglia and thalamus.

The resting or sleeping cortex operates in a synchronized slow–wave mode – alpha, theta, or delta – depending on modulation by the reticular formation and selective attentional networks. In other words, when the brain or specific intrinsic networks function in alpha or theta mode with open eyes while solving tasks, it is not truly awake in the sense required for learning or generating adaptive, novel solutions. Instead, it operates in automatic mode, retrieving pre–existing memory representations – predefined action programs, affective regulation patterns, or habitual ways of perceiving the world.

This is the ultimate effect of screen addiction on brain function – it slows cortical activity in specific intrinsic networks, leading to disintegration and fragmentation of cognitive processes. Through the strong reinforcement of this activity via hyperdirect pathways, perceiving it as safe, soothing, and/or stimulating, attention, sensory systems, and executive functions become increasingly focused on it – at the expense of interaction with the external environment.

In other words, the key changes that occur are:

Redirection of attention in the visual and auditory sensory systems toward specific screen stimuli, with a reciprocal suppression of perception for other audiovisual inputs from the real environment.
Lowered vigilance and wakefulness, as the activity is perceived as safe, modulating non–selective attention and shifting the brain into a passive state.
Mirror neuron systems become attuned to movements on the screen and, over time, to inanimate objects rather than human emotions, microexpressions, and social interactions.
Associative learning shifts away from human tendencies, language development, consciousness, and self–awareness, becoming confined to the patterns of addictive behavior.
Instrumental learning is rewired, prioritizing immediate gratification and systematically avoiding consequences through learned and continuously refined outbursts of anger, rage, and anti–human, animalistic programs of dominance and control.

The vicious cycle becomes self–perpetuating, as all systems remain active and all forms of learning are engaged – but within a distorted framework, namely addictive functioning. This leads to an endless repetition of the same patterns, day after day. The primary consequence of addictive functioning is the stagnation of development, marked by a fixation on the past and a reliance on memory rather than adaptation. A rigid homeostasis takes shape – highly reinforced and fiercely defended by all possible means. In this state, memory becomes the dominant regulator of behavior, resembling the final stage of human life – old age. Viewed in this way, addictive behavior offers new insight into various social phenomena such as dogmatism, fanaticism, militarism, totalitarianism, and, when addiction occurs too early, autism.

In screen addiction and early screen exposure in young children, indirect pathways reciprocally inhibit all other sensory inputs, except for the visual and auditory systems. This also affects executive functions, including both gross and fine motor skills. Once screen activity is discontinued, the most commonly observed outcome is hyperactive behavior, filled with primitive reflexes that lack clear intention or purposeful direction. The likely neurophysiological mechanism is non–selective disinhibition with a low selection threshold in the basal ganglia, similar to what is observed in schizoid conditions. However, in this case, it affects not only affective states but also motor primitive programs and automatically learned verbal phrases, which appear without context or intention. These automatisms, occurring in a state of reduced or "clouded" consciousness – resembling a dreamlike state – are likely interspersed with synesthetic hallucinatory experiences and a complete reversal of the perception of internal and external reality. This is the only way to explain why children react so intensely to changes in their environment and perceive their mothers as extensions of their own hands – a kind of living avatar that they can physically control through pointing, grabbing, or pushing. Or they become unable to eat unless a specific spatial stimulus is present in their environment. Instincts and basic needs no longer drive the child's motivation – everything has been rewritten by addiction, especially if they have been fed, soothed, or put to sleep with a screen. In more severe cases of dissociation, there are notable similarities to occipital and temporal epilepsy, where seizures occur during sleep or in darkness, as well as to schizophrenia, with its characteristic state fragmentation and alternation, which over time grow more complex and even take on personified forms. The problem is not just that certain functions become distorted and that all functional systems remain stuck at a primitive stage of maturation (1), (2), and (3), with the next three stages missing. The real issue is that development is diverted into a "horizontal" trajectory – a repetitive cycle of the same patterns – rather than progressing toward developmental leaps and reaching key milestones. The more this horizontal development continues, the harder it becomes to redirect the child back toward vertical development. In other words, the longer the addiction persists, the more severe the symptoms become, making recovery increasingly difficult.

This is evident in the regression to the earliest developmental stages during therapy and recovery, as the child must return to the point where addiction first took hold.

To recover, the child must retrace their developmental path and relearn everything in a new way, correcting what addiction has disrupted. It is as if the function altered by addiction is no longer truly human but something else entirely – one that must be rewritten from the ground up. One study has demonstrated that there may be neurophysiological deficits in GABA receptor–mediated function in ASD. In conclusion, reduced GABA-ergic function in the neural circuits could underlie the Excitatory/Inhibitory imbalance in ASD, which may be related to the pathophysiology of clinical symptoms of ASD. (Masuda et al., 2019)

Animalistic Programs of Power and Control

A common trait among children with early screen addiction, particularly those diagnosed with ASD, is behavior that aligns more closely with the animal world than the human one – a phenomenon we call animalistic programs, some of which are centered on power and control.

When the cortex is inactive – essentially "asleep" – and fails to learn from the surrounding world, and when the mirror neuron system is redirected toward objects instead of social interactions, subcortical innate reflex programs take over. In severe cases, this may even activate earlier phylogenetic behavioral patterns, emerging as screen addiction progresses and regression deepens. There are documented instances of archaic behavioral programs surfacing – patterns that are not characteristic of normal human development.

One such example is toe–walking, a trait seen in nearly all vertebrates except primates. Other behaviors include hand–flapping, teeth–grinding, skipping the crawling phase in motor development, biting, scratching, pinching, and producing sounds typical of certain animals. These manifestations can be deeply unsettling, even for the most resilient parents. Aggressive and self–aggressive behaviors, triggered by frustration or rage, are also common.

Another defining feature of animalistic programs is "avatar–like control" over parents. Many children with early screen addiction develop a nonverbal, directive form of communication, where they manipulate parents or caregivers by pointing, grabbing their hand, or physically leading them. These actions serve a narrow set of objectives, such as opening a door, retrieving objects, getting food or water, and most notably – gaining access to screen devices.

What stands out in this behavior is that children perceive their parents as an extension of their own hands or as a puppet on strings, responding instantly to their gestures and movements to achieve a desired outcome. Similarly, when faced with threat or distress, they instinctively leap into their parents' arms, clinging to them just as they did in infancy.

Parents often interpret these actions as a form of communication and eagerly reinforce the behavior, believing it to be a sign of attachment. However, this is not true attachment but rather a utilitarian use of the parent – as a tool in the case of avatar–like control or as a pacifier within infantile behavioral patterns.

If the child’s demand is not met, they immediately shift into power–driven behaviors, refining them with remarkable efficiency. These include screaming, shrieking, throwing tantrums, and forcefully arching their body backward, with complete disregard for potential injury. They may bang their head on the floor, wall, or even against another person.

In cases of prolonged neglect, these behaviors may escalate into more extreme aggressive or self–aggressive actions, such as biting (self–biting), pinching (self–pinching), scratching (self–scratching), hitting (self–hitting), and more. The sudden and absolute shift from helplessness to aggression is a clear sign that no true attachment exists between the child and the parent. While this behavior clearly demonstrates the programs of power and control that children exert over parents, relatives, therapists, and teachers, it is also important to note that this anti–attachment dynamic is bidirectional. The instinctive response to such behavior is often reciprocity, which is socially unacceptable and tends to manifest in various forms – neglect, coercion, emotional withdrawal (as seen in certain established therapeutic approaches), or being rationalized through convenient explanations and justifications. This vicious cycle is further reinforced by co–sleeping, which occurs in 80% of cases, often continuing with one or both parents until as late as age 14. The effects of these patterns become evident in the child's inability to sleep independently, separate from their parents, mature emotionally, or develop a genuine need for human communication.

Highly effective programs of power and control exploit parental fear and anxiety, often amplifying pre–existing parental trauma or addictions, and quickly take root in the family’s daily life. Avatar–like control expands and generalizes into a wide range of behaviors – insisting on car rides along specific routes, compulsive sensory stimulation such as staring at traffic lights or lamps, and other elaborate rituals that parents comply with to avoid witnessing their child's uncontrolled rage and extreme reactions. It is as if the child is attempting to transform real life into a series of repetitive, predictable experiences, mirroring the nature of screen–based activities.

The lack of external inhibition soon leads to the absence of any inhibition in the child's behavior, leaving reward–based conditioning and behavioral training methods as the only means of control. Naturally, screens play a central role in calming and "regulating" behavior. This creates yet another vicious cycle, as non–selective inhibition and selective disinhibition – both essential for the development of wakefulness, goal–directed and autonomous behavior, and language – can only be properly mirrored through System 0 by the child's primary caregivers within a secure attachment style.

And it is precisely here that everyone fails – staggeringly and profoundly inadequately.

The child has no one to learn from. These essential self–regulation skills are simply excluded from their development – internally by screen addiction and externally by the inadequacy of parents and therapists. As a result, life becomes locked in a single, unchanging day, where there is no real progress, only a continuous cycle of repetitive behaviors and stereotypical actions that deepen over the years. Interestingly, as children re–engage with reality during the process of overcoming screen addiction, long–forgotten behavioral patterns begin to reappear – but in reverse order, eventually leading back to the earliest signs of addiction. For example, a child may start putting objects in their mouth, a behavior typical of infancy – the stage at which screens were first introduced into their life.

It is as if, instead of fostering true development, addiction pushes the child into side paths of horizontal behavioral modifications, resulting in an array of compulsive actions and stereotypies, but without meaningful progress or developmental leaps.

This is a brutal reality – a form of cruelty that society allows without consequence, stripping children of their innocence and purity and, in turn, shaping them into executors of dehumanization. We can only hope that society will take responsible action and criminalize the exposure of children under three to screens, recognizing it as a form of severe physical and psychological harm inflicted on a defenseless child. True recovery can only begin when these anti–human, animalistic programs are completely neutralized and eradicated from the child's behavior and functioning.

Sleep Disturbances

At the start of therapy, 92% of children exhibit some form of sleep disorder, affecting both sleep quantity and quality (Lin et al., 2021).

Research highlights that sleep problems in ASD significantly impact social interaction, daily functioning, and academic performance while also correlating with increased maternal stress and parental sleep disruption. Polysomnography studies of children with ASD reveal that most abnormalities occur during REM sleep, including reduced REM duration, increased undifferentiated sleep, immature eye movement organization, decreased total sleep time, prolonged REM latency, and an increased proportion of deep sleep (Devnani et al., 2015).

Sleep disturbances are widely reported in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Proper diagnosis and treatment of sleep problems in these individuals is critical, as poor sleep exacerbates ASD–related symptoms such as inattention and irritability (Cortese et al., 2020; Petti et al., 2024).

Children with early screen addiction often experience difficulty falling asleep, frequent nighttime awakenings with screaming and crying, difficulty returning to sleep, and an overall lack of restorative rest. Poor sleep quality is linked to hyperactive behavior during the day, while insufficient sleep duration correlates with attention deficits, altered wakefulness levels, foggy consciousness, delirium, or complete shutdown (stupor). In all cases, automatized behaviors are a persistent and defining feature of the child’s daily functioning.

A significant number of children with early screen addiction exhibit a clinical profile resembling occipital epilepsy. When epileptic activity spreads forward into the cortex, it can trigger not only visual but also auditory hallucinations, vocalizations, and involuntary tic–like movements that occur spontaneously.

EEG findings frequently show high–amplitude alpha/beta1 waves localized to C3 and Cz, which may indicate involuntary movements, tics, and vocalizations. Additionally, seizures occurring during sleep have been observed in six cases within our clinical practice, with a direct correlation between excessive screen use and addiction–related neurological effects.

Dysfunctional sleep, combined with lower–than–normal wakefulness levels, is directly linked to impaired learning and skill acquisition. These children either lack deep sleep entirely or experience extremely low–quality sleep, which hinders their ability to absorb new information and develop new skills. The only exceptions are behaviors associated with addiction and automatized routines, which become increasingly pronounced over time.

As a result, parents and observers often describe the impression that the child is living the same day over and over again – trapped in an endless loop of repetitive actions, devoid of genuine progress.

A clear pattern emerged during therapy, applying not only to children but also to parents, many of whom also experienced sleep disturbances. The relationship was straightforward: the more the child or parent remained awake and engaged during the day – rather than lost in automatized behaviors – the deeper their sleep was at night. The opposite was also true.

A common issue among children with early screen addiction was overprotective parenting and a complete lack of confrontation or guidance from caregivers. Instead of being led through the day, these children were placed on a throne – treated as little emperors, while the entire family served as their attendants.

This dynamic extended to co–sleeping, where children slept in the same bed with one or both parents, regardless of age, until the start of therapy. Many were unable to fall asleep any other way, leading to a complete takeover of their parents' evening hours, personal space, and intimate life.

One of the key goals of therapy was to restructure the child’s bedtime routine, ensuring that they:

Fall asleep independently and naturally, much earlier than before.
Sleep deeply and uninterruptedly in their own bed.
Get at least nine hours of sleep, appropriate for their age and essential for recovery.

In the majority of cases, these sleep improvements were successfully achieved and played a critical role in the child's overall healing process.

Language, Thinking, and the Self – The Great Selective Disinhibitor

Here, it is important to make a clear distinction between nonverbal and verbal children. Everything described above applies primarily to severe developmental disorders accompanied by nonverbalism or profound language impairments (such as automatic speech and echolalia). In verbal children, however, screen addiction manifests very differently.

It appears that language and screen activity are reciprocal, mutually exclusive phenomena. Perhaps this explains why cortical suppression is more pronounced in the left hemisphere. Thus, language, thinking, and self–awareness are the three most profoundly affected human faculties under screen influence. However, the reverse is also true:

The very things that neutralize, restore, and eliminate screen addiction are language, thinking, and a strong sense of self.

This has been empirically observed in our work treating screen addiction in adults, particularly in the 18–35 age group, where differences in cortical function and autonomic markers require a more specialized therapeutic approach.

We have already discussed automatized behaviors and developmental stagnation, which persist even after an extended detox – a phenomenon we have termed screen trauma. Interestingly, this developmental stagnation manifests in two opposite directions:

Infantilization – A regression to earlier, immature behavioral patterns.
Cognitive aging – A mental shift toward the past, marked by memory fixation, avoidance of new challenges, resistance to learning new skills, and rejection of new contexts.

This loop of stagnation and rigidity is characteristic at any age and can be observed in:

Repetitive automatic thoughts
Dogmatism
Constant complaining
Justifying the current state
Blaming external factors (external locus of control)
Endless forms of escapism from reality

Ultimately, screen addiction does not simply halt development – it redirects it into repetitive, self–reinforcing loops, disconnecting individuals from growth, adaptability, and true human engagement.

For example, conspiracy thinking, pseudoscientific beliefs, and engagement with spiritualism, medium practices, astrology, numerology, and occult activities. The lack of critical, logical thinking, which requires effort, analysis, and reasoning – referred to as System 2 by Kahneman (Tversky et al., 1974, 1992; Kahneman et al., 1979; Kahneman, 2003, 2012) – is often replaced by simplified, pre–determined belief systems that provide ready–made answers, such as astrology, numerology, and various esoteric frameworks.

These systems align with System 1, as described by Kahneman – a fast, intuitive, and reward–driven cognitive process that minimizes cognitive effort. In this way, addictive functioning remains hidden, yet the individual exhibits socially acceptable behaviors that have increasingly become the norm in today's digitalized world.

The impact of screen addiction varies across different age groups because it affects higher cognitive functions in different ways – consciousness, logical reasoning, and self–awareness.

In young children, these functions develop exclusively through direct interaction with real people, primarily their parents, via the mirror neuron system, which we have termed System 0.

Mirror Neuron Systems (System 0) and Parent–Child Attachment

The scientific literature contains extensive data suggesting that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have persistent impairments in the mirror neuron system, which are believed to be genetically or prenatally determined (Williams et al., 2001; Nishitani et al., 2004; De Hamilton, 2013; Edwards, 2014).

However, studies examining specific aspects of mirror neuron activity using the Mu suppression index in children with ASD and typical development (TD) aged 2–4 years have clearly demonstrated no functional impairment in the mirror neuron system (Ruysschaert et al., 2014). Notably, in order to conduct this study, children with autism were given a screen to facilitate their participation in the experiment. This is not an isolated case but rather a widespread practice in ASD research, which strongly suggests an underlying dependence on screens.

These findings align with our clinical observations: mirror neuron systems in children with ASD are not dysfunctional but rather "hacked" – they are tuned not to human interaction but to the movement of objects and images on screens.

The same pattern applies to selective visual and auditory attention. It is not inherently impaired, but rather deficient in response to social stimuli, which are perceived as low–value, unimportant, and unrelated to addictive functioning.

Research on event–related potentials (ERP) has also identified differences in visual perception between teenagers with Asperger’s syndrome and those with typical development. These differences are evident in:

Amplitude variations in specific ERP components
Delayed response times (latency shifts)
Lower activation levels in the visual cortex

These findings confirm our observations that excessive screen stimulation desensitizes the visual cortex to real–world stimuli, leading to abnormally high alpha and beta1 amplitudes, particularly in O1. These effects propagate toward the parietal, temporal, central, and frontal cortical regions in the left hemisphere (Nishitani et al., 2004).

While motor imitation remains intact in children with early screen addiction, affective stimuli are processed differently, as demonstrated in some fMRI studies (De Hamilton, 2013). However, these findings were obtained using screen–based stimuli, which raises concerns about their ecological validity.

One of the major flaws in many past studies on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is that they fail to account for screen addiction as a potential factor – neither in the experimental nor in the control groups. This oversight alters the validity of all conclusions drawn from studies that use monitor–based stimuli, as they do not reflect real–life interactions.

Attachment Disruption and Redirection Toward Objects

The lack of interest in real people among children with early screen addiction leads to a breakdown in attachment – not only from the child toward the parent but also from the parent toward the child. This attachment is pathological, disorganized, and insecure. However, contrary to common claims that this is genetically or prenatally determined, our observations suggest that it is acquired and distorted from the moment screen addiction begins.

Many parents report that their child was developing normally up to one year of age, saying their first words, making eye contact, and showing interest in people – until they suddenly withdrew, lost eye contact, and became absorbed in their own world.

This clearly indicates that attachment itself can be "hacked" and redirected – not toward human interaction but toward the inanimate world. Instead of bonding with people, the child forms attachments to: a favorite toy; a favorite song; a favorite story; a favorite picture or visual pattern.

These highly valued audiovisual stimuli become the primary focus of the child’s brain, displacing interaction with other people. Such a shift can occur only in the context of addiction, psychotic–like processes, or a combination of both, as is increasingly observed in the youngest children.

In fact, individuals, who prefer to use interactions with objects instead of people to regulate physiological state, often receive psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, borderline personality disorder etc.). (Porges et al., 2007)

Restoring Attachment and the Role of Parents in Recovery

During the process of recovery from screen addiction, a clear shift in attachment style and imitation abilities can be observed. These changes first emerge in interactions with the therapist, then extend to parents, and finally to peers.

Our observations strongly suggest that a disorganized attachment style can gradually be replaced with a secure one, provided that therapy addresses both screen addiction and the dependent behavioral patterns resulting from early screen trauma.

Parents play a key role in their child’s return to normal development. As therapy progresses, changes in the child occur much more rapidly compared to the long period of stagnation and distress the family has endured. This means that parents must reorganize not only their lifestyle but also their own behavioral and emotional functioning.

Since attachment and mirror neuron systems operate reciprocally, when a child begins to show renewed interest in people, they need to be met with an appropriate and engaged response from their parents. This responsiveness is crucial for accelerating the recovery process.

However, in cases where the child's newly emerging social engagement is met with the parents’ old behavioral patterns from the period of addiction, a replay of past dynamics occurs, which dilutes and undermines the therapeutic effects of recovery.

This is why parental involvement in therapy is essential. Parents, whether consciously or unconsciously, may sabotage or hinder their child’s recovery if they fail to adapt their own behavior, mindset, and emotional responses to their child’s progress in therapy.

Therapy must therefore extend beyond the child – helping parents update their understanding, reactions, and overall approach to their child’s transformation.

Research has shown that a secure attachment style is associated with specific heart rate variability (HRV) parameters (Feldman et al., 2011). Likewise, disorganized and pathological attachment styles also exhibit distinct autonomic patterns (Izard, 1991; Field et al., 2008; Bonini et al., 2020).

Since HRV can be modified through biofeedback neurotherapy, it is possible to promote the development of a secure attachment style, gradually replacing disorganized, anxious, and avoidant attachment patterns.

In typically developing children, attachment is reinforced not only through cortical mirroring via the mirror neuron system but also through "cardiac mirroring," where HRV parameters synchronize between parent and child (Feldman et al., 2011).

This principle is actively used in therapy. Therapists approach children with a specific autonomic–affective state – one that mirrors the physiological and emotional conditions characteristic of secure attachment, regardless of the child's initial state.

At the start of therapy, most children exhibit extreme dysregulation, uncooperativeness, and challenging behaviors, driven by dominant control–based and maladaptive behavioral patterns.

The Therapist’s State as a Key Factor in Treatment

The therapist’s physiological and emotional state plays a crucial role in:

Containing the child's dysregulated and dominance–driven behaviors and neutralizing animalistic patterns
Replacing these behaviors with prosocial, human–like responses

Any sign of fear, anxiety, or uncertainty in the therapist weakens the therapeutic process, making meaningful change difficult. Establishing a calm, confident, and attuned therapeutic presence is essential for restructuring attachment and behavioral regulation.

A key distinction from conventional therapy is that the child does not lead the process. Instead, the therapist takes full leadership, actively guiding and "awakening" the child while maintaining a firm, non–coercive presence during episodes of dysregulation and maladaptive behavior. This is done with calmness, gentleness, and unwavering human connection.

During a well–conducted session, when the child’s wakefulness capacity is fully engaged, they often fall asleep within 10 to 20 minutes, and in some cases, up to an hour and a half. Upon waking, the child perceives their surroundings differently, often astonishing parents who previously believed their child was incapable of tiring from automatic hyperactive behaviors or falling asleep without rigid bedtime rituals.

These initial breakthroughs must not be met with outdated parental patterns – such as fear, anxiety, passivity, or a lack of authority – but rather with a new parental role: one that is gentle, loving, yet firmly guiding the child through life.

Monitoring the therapist’s state is a fundamental aspect of this therapeutic model. Over time, this same principle was extended to parents, who often exhibited significant functional impairments, both autonomic (physiological dysregulation) and cognitive–emotional (chronic stress, burnout, or trauma–related behaviors).

By addressing these issues, parents can gradually step into their role as secure, attuned guides, essential for their child's long–term recovery.

Reasons for Family Dropout from Therapy

In most cases where families discontinued therapy, clear patterns emerged. One of the primary reasons was the failure of therapists to change parental functioning and actively involve parents in the recovery process.

Many parents struggled to accept the reality that their child’s recovery depended entirely on their own participation and emotional state. This resistance was often rooted in anxiety, depression, and addictions, which made them rigid, disengaged, and unable to learn new strategies.

Another major challenge was reframing their perception of the child’s condition. They had to transition from seeing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as an incurable, etiologically unknown condition to accepting the uncomfortable reality that their own allowance of screen exposure contributed to their child’s developmental setbacks.

Parents who accepted this responsibility and actively engaged in the recovery process saw remarkable improvements in their children.

However, those who denied responsibility, remained skeptical of yet another intervention, or failed to understand why therapy was necessary for them as well, hit a wall in the recovery process. In many cases, their hesitation ultimately led to dropping out of therapy.

Like any chronic condition within a family, especially when it affects a child, the situation pushes every member’s coping abilities, values, and emotional resilience to the limit. This often results in hidden and overt family dynamics that shape the course of their collective experience.

Common patterns observed in families included:

Fathers withdrawing from responsibility, either by physically leaving or assuming the role of a financial provider while remaining emotionally absent.
Mothers quitting their jobs to become full–time caregivers, assuming the role of personal assistants to their children, at the cost of their personal and professional fulfillment.
Unprocessed anger, chronic toxic stress, and feelings of helplessness triggering a range of psychosomatic illnesses, and in extreme cases, even leading to death.

Families displayed various coping and survival strategies, but the most common were avoidance, denial, and operating on autopilot – the same automatized existence that characterized their addicted children.

In these cases, the child became the gravitational center of the family, around which dysfunction intensified. Instead of fostering resilience and growth, the family unit spiraled into regression and emotional exhaustion, manifesting as: Hidden or overt violence; Suppressed or expressed aggression; Indifference; Abandonment of personal and family development; A gradual disengagement from life itself.

A child cannot guide their own development – they need strong, purposeful, and emotionally healthy parents to lead them through life and gradually teach them autonomy and independence. However, in our cases, we observed the opposite pattern: parents who had abandoned their own lives, viewing themselves as victims of fate, entirely devoted to serving their child – either as a form of punishment or as their highest duty, which gave their life meaning.

This dynamic creates a rigid biopsychosocial homeostasis, where both child and parent become mutually dependent, reinforcing one another in a cycle of dysfunction. When this pattern has been maintained for years, breaking free from it becomes a significant challenge.

One of the greatest difficulties in therapy is not just rehabilitating the child but transforming the entire family system.

When children began to recover, parents would often report that they finally had a child at home again – but one they were unfamiliar with. Instead of rigid, predictable automatisms and rituals, their child now engaged in playful mischief and typical childhood defiance. This required every family member to adapt their role, behavior, and emotional state.

For some mothers, in particular, this transition was difficult, as they struggled to let go of the victim identity they had unconsciously internalized. It sometimes took months for them to reclaim their own lives, release their unconscious attachment to their child’s dependency, and allow them to grow – without feeling that they were losing their sense of purpose.

This is just a small glimpse into the complex psychosocial dynamics within families undergoing the recovery of a child with early screen addiction and severe developmental diagnoses.

For parents to actively participate in their child’s recovery and truly bring them back into reality, therapists provided training on how to conduct daily neurorehabilitation exercises at home.

Our approach emphasizes that the recovery of the child must be accompanied by a transformation in the lifestyle of the entire family. This is why therapy sessions with professionals take place only once per week, while the core work happens at home.

A model where a child receives 30 hours per week of structured therapy but then returns to an unchanged family environment risks low effectiveness and unconscious parental sabotage of progress.

The mindset that a therapist can "fix" a child and return them "cured" without parental involvement is fundamentally flawed. Without recognizing that the primary factor in the child's condition is the family itself, even the most well–designed therapeutic program can fail.

Sensory–Motor Fragmentation and Disintegration

It became evident that the sensory systems of children with early screen addiction were damaged in different ways due to the excessive stimulation of only the visual and auditory senses, while other sensory modalities were neglected or suppressed.

Some of the most common symptoms included:

Lazy eye (amblyopia); Hyperreactivity or hyporeactivity to tactile stimuli; Vestibular dysfunction; Taste and smell–based stereotypies; Selective eating (monodiets) and feeding difficulties; Gastrointestinal issues, including difficulties with bowel control; Unsteady gait and poor postural stability; Lack of hand–eye coordination; Toe–walking, constant running, and engagement in repetitive automatic movements

These developmental markers were often accompanied by highly advanced abilities that were atypical for the child’s age.

Many children demonstrated exceptional skills in:

Sorting letters, numbers, and colors; Perfect spatial orientation; Following exact routes when walking or driving

These abilities often impressed parents and observers, leading to reinforcement of these behaviors. Many parents enthusiastically invested in their child's "special talents", buying large puzzles, multiple alphabets, and an overwhelming number of toys.

One striking case involved a child who could correctly arrange and pronounce alphabets in 19 different languages yet remained completely nonverbal in daily communication.

The Neurological Basis of Sensory–Motor Disintegration

This external presentation of sensory–motor dysfunction is rooted in underlying cortical disorganization. The brain’s excessive prioritization of visual and auditory stimulation from screens disrupts its ability to integrate multiple functional systems.

At the neurological level, this manifests as:

Fragmented and disorganized cortical activity
Asynchronous development across intrinsic connectivity networks
Local hyperconnectivity combined with trans–cortical hypoconnectivity
Significant frequency mismatches between different cortical regions

In many cases, dominant frequencies in different cortical areas vary by more than 2 Hz, indicating a lack of synchronized development across networks. We define this as fragmentation – where each neural network operates at a different developmental stage, with varying degrees of maturity and no proper coordination between them.

This phenomenon is particularly severe when screen addiction begins before the age of one, profoundly affecting early brain organization and functional integration.

Extensive research has been conducted on sensory–motor integration in early childhood, including the identification of dozens of primitive reflexes that, when present beyond infancy, are characteristic of developmental disorders.

Here, we will outline our clinical experience working with children affected by early screen addiction, focusing on the specific ways in which sensory and motor systems become distorted in this population.

Visual system

One of the most immediate and recognizable signs of severe early screen addiction is the distinct gaze pattern observed in affected children. Over time, therapists have learned to identify this with high accuracy, referring to it informally as "lazy eye" (not to be confused with amblyopia).

This gaze is characterized by:

A drifting, unfocused, and sluggish eye movement
Lack of sharpness, speed, and engagement
A noticeable contrast to the alert, responsive gaze of typically developing children

Eye–Tracking Research in ASD

Studies have shown that eye–tracking technology and measurement of gaze preference for social scenes can be valuable tools for screening autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Vargas–Cuentas et al., 2017).

Research further suggests that eye–tracking provides objective, quantifiable markers of ASD risk and symptom severity (Frazier et al., 2018). If validated in broader clinical settings, these measures could enhance diagnostic accuracy and help track symptom progression over time.

While these findings are primarily linked to ASD, similar gaze abnormalities are frequently observed in children with early screen addiction, suggesting a possible overlap in visual processing alterations.

The more pronounced the "lazy eye" effect, the more severe the symptoms tend to be. Our clinical observations align with findings from autism screening tests, which are continuously improving in sensitivity to ASD severity levels.

Interestingly, studies have shown that when children with ASD and typically developing children observe a tablet screen, no significant differences are detected in their eye–tracking parameters. However, when looking at a human face, clear differences in gaze patterns emerge (Wang et al., 2024).

This finding further supports the idea that children with early screen addiction (diagnosed with ASD) develop a preference for screen–based stimuli over human social cues, reinforcing visual processing biases that impact social engagement and communication.

We can assume that attention networks related to visual perception become attuned to screen–based and screen–like stimuli at the expense of real–world stimuli. This results in a reinforcement of stimuli that sustain addiction and compulsive functioning, while avoiding those that counteract it.

Eye gaze, which correlates with attention engagement in visual perception, is shaped individually from birth through reinforcement learning. Due to this mechanism, addiction rapidly and deeply embeds itself through the reward system, which governs the engagement, sustainment, and disengagement of selective attention in visual perception.

According to our observations, screen addiction can develop within a month of intensive screen exposure, particularly when screens are used for state regulation, calming, or feeding.

When a child eats in front of a screen, they may accept any type of food into their mouth without resistance, yet without developing any taste perception or satisfying their nutritional needs. This becomes especially evident when screens are removed – children often refuse to eat and, even during prolonged detox, may go without food for days, in some cases up to a week.

This indicates that addiction rewrites homeostatic needs, meaning they no longer play a role in shaping behavior. Moreover, food is chosen solely based on shape and color, conditioned during the period of addiction, while all other foods are rejected. In this process, vision, rather than taste or smell, becomes the primary factor in food selection.

The visual stimulus not only competes with taste and smell but also overrides basic homeostatic needs, including hunger and appetite. Each child exhibits individual variations, including monodiets, carbohydrate–dominant diets, refusal to eat vegetables and fruits, avoidance of liquid foods, and numerous other restrictive patterns. However, a common feature among all cases is the lack of dietary variation – over time, eating becomes increasingly rigid and unchanging, even if screen exposure continues.

The situation becomes particularly critical during screen detox, especially if no therapeutic intervention is provided. In isolated cases, we observed a complete refusal to eat for up to a week, which would challenge even the most determined parents and therapists. However, by maintaining therapeutic consistency, the child eventually resumed eating, gradually regaining lost weight within two weeks.

To such an extent does vision become the dominant sensory system, dictating both taste and smell, that during screen detox, the child refuses to eat unless substitute spatial and/or visual stimuli are present in their environment, replacing the absent screen.

We can imagine that for children with early screen addiction, the world appears entirely different from how we perceive it. If we try to see through their eyes, we might envision a slightly larger, spherical screen, always within arm’s reach, which they perceive as something manipulable, just like a touchscreen device, with simple finger swipes.

Through hand gestures, grabbing their mother’s hand, and gently pushing in the desired direction, these children quickly learn to use people as "avatars" to achieve specific goals – whether it's opening a door, bringing an object, or completing another task.

Parents, eager to establish some form of communication with their children, often unconsciously reinforce this behavior by willingly playing the role of an interactive tool. This, in turn, solidifies the child’s worldview, where real–life interactions mimic digital interactions rather than the other way around.

Instead of the virtual world being a representation of reality, reality becomes a representation of the virtual world. From this point, the leap toward psychotic–like cognitive organization is dangerously small.

Could early screen addiction provide us with key insights into one of the most challenging mysteries in science – the origins of psychotic disorders?

Vision is the most compromised sensory system in early screen addiction. This is evident not only in selective visual attention, where children become fixated on glowing, flickering objects, particularly during screen detox, but also in their preference for specific objects and repetitive actions over observing human faces, expressions, and interactions.

The visual system becomes so overloaded that it can no longer be effectively used for learning. This is not only due to poor signal–to–noise processing but also because of excessively high–amplitude activity, particularly in O1, the primary visual cortex.

A pattern resembling occipital epilepsy, characterized by high–amplitude, slow–wave, synchronous rhythms, has been observed in many cases. These abnormal oscillations increase significantly when the child closes their eyes, potentially explaining widespread sleep–onset difficulties, poor sleep quality, and reduced sleep duration.

Most children exhibited strong negative reactions to the eye–closing test, reacting less to simply being placed in a dark room but more intensely to closing their eyes with an eye mask. This test proved to be highly sensitive, with the severity of the reaction correlating directly with the severity of early screen addiction. A similar test involving ear plugging also induced discomfort but was less sensitive as an indicator of addiction severity than the visual test.

Seizures and Occipital Epilepsy in Screen–Addicted Children

We observed six cases of sleep–related seizures in children between 4 and 19 years old. In all cases, there had been prolonged screen exposure immediately before the seizures, and the children already displayed clear indicators of screen addiction.

Treating screen addiction led to the complete disappearance of seizures, though in three cases, anticonvulsant medication was also introduced.

The connection between increasing cases of occipital epilepsy and early screen addiction requires further, in–depth investigation to fully understand the underlying mechanisms.

Auditory system

The audio component of audiovisual stimulation from screen devices is often underestimated by researchers, yet our observations suggest that it plays a critical role in the development of screen addiction.

We encountered two cases where parents insisted that their children had not been exposed to screens but were constantly exposed to songs and audio stories. Despite the absence of visual stimuli, these children developed a clear addiction and exhibited the same compulsive behaviors as children with full–fledged early screen addiction.

This strongly suggests that addiction can develop not only to screens but also to repetitive auditory stimuli, particularly when exposure is excessive.

Audio Detox as Part of Screen Detox

During screen detox, children in our program also undergo audio detox, meaning:

No songs or stories from devices that were previously part of their screen habits
No synthetic human speech from devices

The only speech children should hear until they develop proper language skills is from real human interactions, not from electronic sources.

In rare cases where parents continued playing familiar stories or songs during detox, addictive behaviors persisted, and improvements were minimal. It was only after removing all sound–producing devices, toys, and objects that the true recovery process for the visual and auditory sensory systems began.

Addiction to Repetitive Auditory Stimuli

We repeatedly observed that children quickly become addicted to pre–recorded songs and stories, which always sound identical when played from a device. These children then refuse to allow their parents to sing or tell stories themselves.

This indicates that their sensory systems become conditioned to avoid variability and modulation in voice patterns.

For these children, speech is not perceived as a tool for human communication but rather as a fixed auditory stimulus from their device of addiction.

Only when all competing audiovisual and auditory stimuli are eliminated, including prerecorded human speech, do children gradually begin to recognize and process the human voice as meaningful communication rather than background noise.

The only acceptable form of auditory stimulation during recovery is complex instrumental music, such as classical music, which offers an endless variety of: Instruments; Rhythms; Tempos; Sound intensities.

The uniqueness of sounds produced by living organisms is crucial. Whether in speech or singing, natural human vocalization includes variations in pitch, volume, rhythm, tempo, and pauses – elements entirely absent in digitally reproduced sound.

A single song, when performed 1,000 times by a live singer, will have 1,000 subtle variations. In contrast, device playback reproduces sound with perfect consistency, which is why young children quickly develop addictive behaviors toward recorded songs.

Even typically developing children, when exposed to prolonged playback of digital songs, often exhibit: Unnatural emotional outbursts; Signs of addictions, even after relatively few repetitions.

This highlights the need to re–evaluate the risks associated with repetitive digital songs and audio stories, which can: Encourage addictive behaviors; Shift children’s preference from natural human speech and singing to artificial, pre–recorded sounds.

Given these findings, songs and stories from devices should no longer be overlooked as a potential risk factor in the development of addiction and sensory processing distortions in young children.

Balance system

Here, we will focus specifically on our clinical observations, rather than the broader topic of vestibular development, which serves as the integrator of the entire sensory–motor system and continues to mature until approximately age nine.

Screen–Induced Pathological Vestibular Reflex (SIPVR)

One of our key findings was the Screen–Induced Pathological Vestibular Reflex (SIPVR) – a highly specific test that we empirically identified. SIPVR correlates with the severity of early screen addiction and has been described in detail in another report from this issue (Vezenkov et al., 2025a).

It is well established in physiology that vision and hearing play a direct role in vestibular function. Screen exposure disrupts balance regulation in several ways:

Visual dominance over vestibular processing occurs when a child stares at a two–dimensional screen instead of actively engaging with three–dimensional space.
Screens require no real spatial focus – unlike real–world objects, where the eyes must adjust depth and perspective.
Simulated motion on screens creates a false sense of movement, tricking the vestibular system into perceiving changes in speed or acceleration that do not correspond to actual body movement.

Screen addiction distorts the perception of movement and space in multiple ways, including alterations in the perception of speed changes and acceleration, which are precisely measured by the vestibular system.

A positive SIPVR result clearly indicates that in children with early screen addiction, the three spatial dimensions are not equally represented in the brain. It appears as though one of these dimensions is missing, likely due to the way the real world is perceived through the dominant and highly reinforced screen–based stimulation.

Moreover, the test remains sensitive even after prolonged screen detox, detecting imbalances when screens are reintroduced. This makes it a valuable tool for studying the effects of excessive visual and auditory stimulation on children's balance.

It is well known that many children with screen addiction react strongly to loud noises, which likely interferes with vestibular nerve stimulation and triggers a primary fear response similar to the fear of falling observed in infants. Many early childhood anxieties and the onset of generalized anxiety are linked to immature vestibular responses.

The rigidity, automatisms, and stereotypical behaviors seen in these children are further reinforced by:

Low sensory processing capacity for new stimuli
A low threshold for triggering generalized anxiety and fear states, even in response to minor environmental or bodily changes

Balance plays a critical role in integrating the sense of safety. Conversely, vestibular dysfunction can easily integrate into the overall sensory experience, reinforcing a constant state of danger, generalized anxiety, and fear.

For this reason, balance rehabilitation was addressed separately yet simultaneously with the recovery of other sensory systems in our therapeutic approach.

Somatosensory system

The skin serves as the natural boundary of the human body and acts as the primary channel for nonverbal communication between parent and child – through touch, stroking, hugging, and kissing.

Here, we report a unique clinical observation regarding tactile stimulation in children with early screen addiction.

Abnormal Tactile Response in the Toes

During early therapy sessions, stroking or touching specific toes (digits 3, 4, and 5) often triggered a strong negative reaction in most children. This was especially pronounced when stimulating the pinky toe (D5) or inserting a finger between D4 and D5, which frequently resulted in an intense distress response, sometimes escalating into a hysterical crisis.

It was as if these areas of the body had no cortical representation, as though the toes were fused together, similar to the paw structure of most mammals.

Toe–walking was one of the fastest–resolving symptoms of early screen addiction once tactile awareness was reactivated and overall wakefulness improved. As automatic behaviors were replaced with intentional movement, toe–walking disappeared, reinforcing our hypothesis that this behavior is not operantly learned walking but rather a regressive, phylogenetically older motor pattern linked to lower cortical wakefulness and automatic movement control.

Most children exhibited unusually high pain thresholds, likely due to the sedative effect of addiction on the brain. Interestingly, their responses to environmental changes in visual or auditory stimuli were often stronger than their reactions to physical pain, injury, or self–harm.

In rare cases, early genital self–stimulation was observed, further supporting the idea that sensory–seeking behavior is the dominant mode of brain function in these children.

Design and Methods

Study Design

This study follows a quasi–experimental pre–post intervention design with an observational component. All participants underwent treatment for screen addiction, during which changes in biomarkers and symptoms were closely monitored. Symptoms that disappeared after the intervention were attributed to screen addiction, while those that persisted were considered unrelated to it.

A control group was not included, as all clients at the Center were treated individually and as soon as possible to alleviate their symptoms. Given the urgent nature of these cases, delaying treatment for research purposes was not ethically or clinically justifiable. Instead, the study relied on pre–post symptom resolution patterns to infer causality. Additionally, a longitudinal observational approach was used to assess the progression of symptom changes over time, allowing for differentiation between screen–related and unrelated conditions.

The data and conclusions were drawn based on individual therapies conducted at the Center, summarized according to their success rates. Cases that were not completed or were discontinued for various reasons were excluded from the study.

Participants and Study Conditions

A total of 118 children (82 boys, 36 girls) and their families participated in the study distributed across various age groups:

Age 2: 2 boys (1.7%), 0 girls (0%)
Age 3: 20 boys (16.9%), 7 girls (5.9%) – total 27 children (22.9%)
Age 4: 15 boys (12.7%), 6 girls (5.1%) – total 21 children (17.8%)
Age 5: 12 boys (10.2%), 7 girls (5.9%) – total 19 children (16.1%)
Age 6: 13 boys (11.0%), 6 girls (5.1%) – total 19 children (16.1%)
Age 7: 5 boys (4.2%), 2 girls (1.7%) – total 7 children (5.9%)
Age 8: 4 boys (3.4%), 1 girl (0.8%) – total 5 children (4.2%)
Age 9: 7 boys (5.9%), 4 girls (3.4%) – total 11 children (9.3%)
Age 12: 4 boys (3.4%), 3 girls (2.5%) – total 7 children (5.9%)

Most participants were between 3 and 6 years old (73.7%), with the highest number at age 3 (22.9%). The number of boys consistently exceeded the number of girls across all age groups. The boys–to–girls ratio (B/G ratio) at the beginning of the study was 2.28, with 82 boys (69.5%) and 36 girls (30.5%).

All children and parents were assessed at the Center under identical conditions, using the same functional assessment equipment and a unique (know–how) methodology developed at the Center.

Quantitative EEG (qEEG) Assessment

EEG recordings were conducted using a 19–channel monopolar montage, employing Neuron–Spectrum–4P hardware and Neuron–Spectrum.NET software (Neurosoft LLC, Russia).

Quantitative spectral analysis was performed, including the calculation of amplitudes across different brain rhythm bands and other quantitative parameters.
Comparisons were made with a neurodatabase for parameters such as absolute and relative amplitude, coherence, phase lag, and Z–scores, using NeuroGuide Deluxe 3.3.0 (Applied Neuroscience, Inc., USA).

EEG Recording in Children Under 12 Years

Children who could not tolerate the EEG cap were not recorded.
For children not yet enrolled in screen detox, EEG was recorded during screen exposure (TV or smartphone).
For children in screen detox who refused the EEG cap, screen stimulation was not reintroduced.
No EEG recordings were performed under coercion.

Autonomic Imbalance Assessment

In parallel with EEG recordings, autonomic peripheral signals were measured, including:

Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) smoothness; Peripheral temperature; Respiratory rate; Skin conductance level (SCL); Electromyography (EMG)

These signals were recorded using 8–channel Gp8 Amp hardware and Alive Pioneer Plus software (Somatic Vision Inc., USA). HRV parameters (HR, SDNN, Total power, LF/HF ratio, smoothness, stress index, SNS index, PNS index) were analyzed using Alive Pioneer Plus and further examined in Kubios HRV Scientific Lite.

Unique (Know–How) Testing Protocols

For all children under 12 years, a series of customized tests were conducted using the Center’s own (know–how) methodology, developed through clinical therapeutic experience. Tests Assessed: Reactions to screen stimuli; Motor and vestibular maturity; Verbal and communication skills; Prosocial behavior; Impulse control; Attachment to parents; Compulsive behaviors; Fear responses.

Therapy Based on Unique (Know–How) Methodology

All children under 12 years old underwent screen addiction therapy for 6 months. The treatment was combined with biofeedback therapy for parents, aiming to restore autonomic, affective, cognitive, and psychosocial balance. This was essential for establishing a secure attachment style, enabling parents to support their children’s weekly developmental progress.

For children under 12 years, therapy was non–instrumental and included: Complete screen detox; Sensorimotor restart; Sleep recovery; Neutralization of anti–human animalistic control programs; "Cortical awakening"; Gradual restoration of attachment – first to the therapist, then progressively to parents; Language therapy.

Parental therapy included: (1) Biofeedback neurotraining for autonomic balance restoration; (2) Neurotherapy for anxiety, depression, and addiction; (3) Neurotherapy for trauma, toxic stress and pathological attachment styles; (4) Strengthening the nervous system’s capacity for stress management; (5) Establishing a secure attachment style; (6) Comprehensive training for parents on their child’s recovery process and their role in it.

Follow–up assessments were conducted for up to 12 months after therapy to track progress and ensure long–term recovery.

Results

A total of 118 children participated in the study, consisting of 82 boys (69.5%) and 36 girls (30.5%). The overall distribution of outcomes among all participants was as follows:

Recovery during therapy: 27 children (22.9%), Boys: 20 out of 118 (16.9%), Girls: 7 out of 118 (5.9%)
Recovery 6 months after therapy: 23 children (19.5%) Boys: 15 out of 118 (12.7%), Girls: 8 out of 118 (6.8%)
Recovery 12 months after therapy: 36 children (30.5%), Boys: 25 out of 118 (21.2%), Girls: 11 out of 118 (9.3%)
Dropout from therapy: 28 children (23.7%), Boys: 18 out of 118 (15.3%), Girls: 10 out of 118 (8.5%)
Partial recovery 12 months after therapy: 4 children (3.4%), Boys: 4 out of 118 (3.4%), Girls: 0 out of 118 (0%)

Summary of Overall Distribution

Total recovery rate (full recovery within 12 months): 73 children (61.9%)
Dropout rate: 28 children (23.7%)
Partial recovery: 4 children (3.4%)

These results highlight that 61.9% of children fully recovered, with an increasing number achieving recovery over time. Boys accounted for a larger proportion of both recovered and dropout cases, reflecting their higher representation in the sample.

The initial boys–to–girls (B/G) ratio was 2.28, indicating that more than twice as many boys as girls were affected by screen addiction. In the recovery group, the ratio slightly increased to 2.31, suggesting that boys and girls recovered at similar rates relative to their initial distribution.

Instead of a Conclusion

The primary objective of this report is to present facts derived from our practical work with families of children affected by early screen addiction, sharing both our successes and challenges.

From the very beginning, our goal has been to provide the greatest possible benefit to children and their families, rather than to strictly adhere to experimental research designs when studying this phenomenon. Our ethical and professional principles do not allow us to apply a rigid, standardized approach when an individualized strategy is necessary for each child and parent to achieve maximum effectiveness.

For this reason, we chose to highlight a different perspective on the research process – one that is heuristic, intuitive, and holistic. Our focus has always been on observing the phenomenon as it unfolds, prioritizing practical solutions over theoretical precision. This has allowed us to tailor interventions effectively, whether it involved:

overcoming a pathological reflex or containing control–based, dominance–driven programs in children, or
treating generalized anxiety or irritable bowel syndrome in parents.

Each breakthrough in our early successful cases was immediately integrated into subsequent cases, allowing our comprehensive therapy model to become increasingly effective and specialized in addressing the recurring challenges of early screen addiction treatment.

In some cases, we were able to predict from the very first sessions when and why therapy would be unsuccessful, based on specific parental profiles. However, even in these cases, we fought tirelessly for the children, ensuring that they were given a real chance to return to a healthy developmental path.

As pioneers in this new paradigm, we faced significant criticism and even strong opposition from many therapists who continue to treat these children as autistic. We also drew the ire of advocates for various stimulation–based methods, such as electro– or magneto–stimulation, an array of dietary supplements, “cleansing” procedures, hyperbaric chambers, and, as it turns out, a growing number of dubious alternative treatments.

When conventional approaches fail to produce results, parents do not give up; they continue searching for solutions everywhere. However, they are often met with the cold, standard response from psychiatrists: that they must accept the autism diagnosis, come to terms with it, and prepare for their children to be lifelong recipients of medical and social services.

Both conventional and alternative treatments for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) generally operate under the assumption that ASD is incurable, has an unknown etiology, and is, moreover, genetically or prenatally determined. Any minor improvement is considered a welcome success within the context of the overall prognosis. Other "traditional" explanations suggest that children with ASD either lack mirror neurons or that their mirror neuron systems are dysfunctional. Similarly, they are often assumed to have a pathological attachment style, while attention deficit, hyperactivity, and oppositional-defiant behavior are attributed to neurological damage. However, recent research has debunked these myths. Our findings demonstrate also that these systems are not impaired but rather hijacked by screen addiction. Mirror neuron systems, attachment styles, selective attention—all of these remain intact but are redirected toward the inanimate world, where even people are perceived as objects. Furthermore, the altered state of consciousness caused by screen addiction, marked by slowed cortical activity and cognitive fog (alpha, theta, delta), triggers automatisms (stereotypic behaviors) and primitive antihuman control-driven programs, manifesting as oppositional-defiant behavior.

Thus, a completely opposing paradigm emerged – one that, for about three years, was largely ignored due to the sheer shock it caused. However, it is now increasingly coming into focus from two sides. More and more researchers are daring to raise the issue of “screen–induced, virtual, or digital autism,” though even they hesitate to challenge the term itself. On the other side, an entire industry of therapists and therapy services continues to treat ASD as a lifelong condition, providing an endless array of so–called “evidence–based practices” that, in reality, have only served to legitimize the diagnosis through their lack of effectiveness.

Where Lies the Key to Effectiveness?

If any one of the six key aspects of early screen addiction discussed in this study is not adequately addressed and effectively treated, the chances of a full recovery for the child decrease drastically, leaving them with only partial improvement. This, in turn, leads them to be classified under the widely accepted and socially reinforced diagnosis of ASD. These six aspects include:

Sensory–motor disintegration and fragmentation
Sleep disturbances
Non-selective disinhibition – “cortical slowing”, clouded consciousness, delirium, stupor.
Animalistic control programs
Pathological parent–child attachment
Language impairment

Most importantly, we must recognize that this is not a genetic or prenatal condition but an addiction that develops in early childhood, halting development and condemning the child and it family to an impaired quality of life. This is not the result of biological determinism but of societal negligence and the harmful influences of the social environment.

We are all responsible for the existence of children suffering from early screen addiction.

Conservative policies are necessary to stop the exponential rise in "ASD cases" worldwide each year. By eliminating early screen addiction through strict and decisive policies, despite resistance from a society that is largely already addicted, we can not only curb this catastrophic trend but also eliminate the diagnosis from medical classifications once and for all.

We seek a solution to the problem, not just compliance with academic publishing requirements in peer–reviewed journals. We share our experience with the hope that scientific teams will build upon our breakthroughs and focus their efforts on investigating this phenomenon – one that has the potential to disrupt social order and endanger the foundation of human life.

This is why we launched Project NOOTISM – a mission dedicated not only to consigning the autism diagnosis to the archives of medical history but also to pushing beyond that. This initiative represents a new scientific research paradigm, where therapeutic art, in the hands and minds of profoundly humane personalities, will be elevated to the highest standard.

References

Cortese, S., Wang, F., Angriman, M., Lecendreux, M., & Bernardina, B. D. (2020). Sleep disorders in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: Diagnosis, epidemiology, and management. CNS Drugs, 34, 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263–020–00710–y
Dapretto, M., Davies, M. S., Pfeifer, J. H., Scott, A. A., Sigman, M., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Understanding emotions in others: Mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1611
De Hamilton, A. F. C. (2013). Reflecting on the mirror neuron system in autism: A systematic review of current theories. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.008
Devnani, P. A., & Hegde, A. U. (2015). Autism and sleep disorders. Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences, 10(4), 304–307. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817–1745.174438
Dong, H. Y., Wang, B., Li, H. H., Yue, X. J., & Jia, F. Y. (2021). Correlation between screen time and autistic symptoms as well as development quotients in children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in psychiatry, 12, 619994. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.619994
Dovern, A., Fink, G. R., Fromme, A. C. B., Wohlschläger, A. M., Weiss, P. H., & Riedl, V. (2012). Intrinsic network connectivity reflects consistency of synesthetic experiences. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(22), 7614–7621. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5401–11.2012
Edwards, L. A. (2014). A meta–analysis of imitation abilities in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 7, 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1379
Firth, J., Torous, J., López‐Gil, J. F., Linardon, J., Milton, A., Lambert, J., ... & Firth, J. A. (2024). From “online brains” to “online lives”: understanding the individualized impacts of Internet use across psychological, cognitive and social dimensions. World Psychiatry, 23(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21188
Frazier, T. W., Klingemier, E. W., Parikh, S., Speer, L., Strauss, M. S., Eng, C., ... & Youngstrom, E. A. (2018). Development and validation of objective and quantitative eye tracking− based measures of autism risk and symptom levels. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(11), 858–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.06.023
Galli, J., Dusi, L., Garofalo, G., Brizzi, A., Gritti, M., Polo, F., ... & Buccino, G. (2025). Children with autistic spectrum disorder can imagine actions – what can this reveal about the Broken Mirror Hypothesis?. Frontiers in Neurology, 16, 1490445. . doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1490445
Gentile, A. E., Rinella, S., Desogus, E., Verrelli, C. M., Iosa, M., Perciavalle, V., & Fiori, F. (2024). Motor imagery for paediatric neurorehabilitation: How much do we know? Perspectives from a systematic review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18, 1245707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1245707
Gowen, E., Edmonds, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2024). Motor imagery in autism: A systematic review. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 18, 1335694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2024.1335694
Hardwick, R. M., Caspers, S., Eickhoff, S. B., & Swinnen, S. P. (2017). Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta–analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 94, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.003
Heffler, K. F., Frome, L. R., & Gullo, D. F. (2022). Changes in autism symptoms associated with screen exposure: case report of two young children. Psychiatry Research Case Reports, 1(2), 100059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psycr.2022.100059
Huang, P., Chan, S. Y., Ngoh, Z. M., et al. (2024). Screen time, brain network development, and socio–emotional competence in childhood: Moderation of associations by parent–child reading. Psychological Medicine, 54(9), 1992–2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724000084
Johnson, E. A. (2024). Boys and girls: Differences in the development of social cognition regions. In The Developing Brain: Implications for Early Education and Intervention (pp. 12–35). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/edited–volume/27967/chapter–abstract/211594649?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
Kahneman, D. (2012). A psychological perspective on economics. American Economic Review, 102(3), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.3.1
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2016). Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 760–773. doi:10.1016/s2215–0366(16)00104–8
Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2016). Neurobiology of addiction: A neurocircuitry analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215–0366(16)00104–8
Laird, A. R., Fox, P. M., Eickhoff, S. B., Turner, J. A., Ray, K. L., McKay, D. R., … Fox, P. T. (2011). Behavioral Interpretations of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 4022–4037. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00077
Li, M., Zhao, R., Dang, X., Xu, X., Chen, R., Chen, Y., ... & Wu, D. (2024). Causal relationships between screen use, reading, and brain development in early adolescents. Advanced Science, 11(11), 2307540. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202307540
Lin, Y. M., Kuo, S. Y., Chang, Y. K., et al. (2021). Effects of parental education on screen time, sleep disturbances, and psychosocial adaptation among Asian preschoolers: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 56, e27–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.07.003
Manolova V.R. and S.R.Vezenkov (2022) Dual Biofeedback For Preschool Children With Screen Addiction. BFE 21tst Meeting Montesilvano, Italy, 21–22 September 2022, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17785.95842
Masuda, F., Nakajima, S., Miyazaki, T. et al. Motor cortex excitability and inhibitory imbalance in autism spectrum disorder assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review. Transl Psychiatry 9, 110 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398–019–0444–3
Nishitani, N., Avikainen, S., & Hari, R. (2004). Abnormal imitation–related cortical activation sequences in Asperger’s syndrome. Annals of Neurology, 55, 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20031
Petti, T., Gupta, M., Fradkin, Y., & Gupta, N. (2024). Management of sleep disorders in autism spectrum disorder with co–occurring attention–deficit hyperactivity disorder: Update for clinicians. BJPsych Open, 10(1), e11. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.589
Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116–143. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror–neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2009). The mirror neuron system. Archives of Neurology, 66, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2009.41
Ruysschaert, L., Warreyn, P., Wiersema, J. R., Oostra, A., & Roeyers, H. (2014). Exploring the role of neural mirroring in children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 7, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1339
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Vargas–Cuentas, N. I., Roman–Gonzalez, A., Gilman, R. H., Barrientos, F., Ting, J., Hidalgo, D., ... & Zimic, M. (2017). Developing an eye–tracking algorithm as a potential tool for early diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in children. PloS one, 12(11), e0188826. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188826
Vezenkov, S.R. and V.R Manolova (2022) A Central Role of Biofeedback in а Complex Therapy of Screen Devices Usage Addiction. BFE 21tst Meeting Montesilvano, Italy, 21–22 September 2022
Vezenkov, S.R. and V.R. Manolova (2024) Rethinking Autism: The Screen Addiction Paradigm. Conference Paper: BFE 22nd Meeting, 8–13 April 2024, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Wang, R. K., Kwong, K., Liu, K., & Kong, X. J. (2024). New eye tracking metrics system: the value in early diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1518180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1518180
Williams, J. H. G., Whiten, A., Suddendorf, T., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Imitation, mirror neurons, and autism. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149–7634(01)00014–8
Wu, D., Dong, X., Liu, D., & Li, H. (2023). How Early Digital Experience Shapes Young Brains During 0–12 Years: A Scoping Review. Early Education and Development, 35(7), 1395–1431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2278117
Yates, L., & Hobson, H. (2020). Continuing to look in the mirror: A review of neuroscientific evidence for the broken mirror hypothesis, EP–M model, and STORM model of autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 24, 1945–1959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320936945
Yuan, G., Zhu, Z., Guo, H., et al. (2024). Screen time and autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive systematic review of risk, usage, and addiction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803–024–06665–z
Zamfir, M. T. (2018). The consumption of virtual environment more than 4 hours/day, in the children between 0–3 years old, can cause a syndrome similar with the autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Romanian literary studies, (13), 953–968.
Zhou, H., Hong, T., Chen, X., et al. (2024). Glutamate concentration of medial prefrontal cortex is inversely associated with addictive behaviors: A translational study. Translational Psychiatry, 14, 433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398–024–03145–x

19.03.2025

issue01-April2025