# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Trauma: Learning Brain vs Survival Brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Infant Reflexes that do not Integrate Successfully can Lead to Developmental Delays

Primitive Reflexes are the first part of the brain to develop and should only remain active for the first few months of life. In typical development, these reflexes naturally inhibit in sequential order during the first year, and replacement reflexes, called postural reflexes, emerge. Postural reflexes are more mature patterns of response that control balance, coordination, and sensory-motor development.

Retained primitive reflexes can lead to struggles related to disorders like ADHD, sensory processing disorder, autism, and learning disabilities. The persistence of primitive reflexes contributes to issues such as coordination, balance, sensory perceptions, fine motor skills, sleep, immunity, energy levels, impulse control, concentration, and all levels of social, emotional, and academic learning.

The good news is, we know that connections, or information pathways, in the brain can change and develop in a way that may lead to improvements in these symptoms. Brain Balance has applied this research to develop a program that focuses on improving the foundation of development and brain connectivity, rather than masking symptoms or coping with them for life. The Brain Balance Program includes a personalized plan to integrate a child's retained primitive reflexes along with many other key exercises for improvement. Your dedicated performance coach will help your child and your family make progress toward your goals.

Causes of Retained Primitive Reflexes

Retention of primitive reflexes can be caused by a variety of factors. The birth process is a key factor in the integration of these reflexes. Therefore a traumatic birth experience or birth by c-section may lead to retained reflexes. Additional causes can include: falls, traumas, lack of tummy time, delayed or skipped creeping or crawling, chronic ear infections, head trauma, and vertebral subluxations.

Types of Primitive Reflexes

STNR: Also known as the crawling reflex, symmetrical tonic neck reflex (STNR) is present briefly after birth and then reappears around six to nine months. This reflex helps the body divide in half at the midline to assist in crawling - as the head is brought towards chest, the arms bend and legs extend. It should disappear by 11 months. Developmental delays related to poor muscle tone, tendency to slump while sitting, and inability to sit still and concentrate can result if the STNR is retained.

The following chart is a useful guide and breaks down the various primitive reflexes listed above into a quick reference. More information can be obtained at one of our local centers.

If you suspect your child has retained primitive reflexes that may be contributing to behavior issues and/or academic challenges, contact your local center today for a Brain Balance Personalized Assessment.

The Brain Balance Personalized Assessment is an objective and quantifiable measurement of each area of function - motor, sensory, behavioral, social, emotional, and academic - allowing us to better understand your child's unique challenges.

For over a decade, the Brain Balance has helped over 50,000 individuals who struggle with learning and developmental issues through our drug-free brain training program.
Sources
L earning Difficulties Due to Poor Connectivity
Effect of the Brain Balance Program® on Cognitive Performance in Children and Adolescents with Developmental and Attentional Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retained Primitive Reflexes as a Sign of Brain Imbalance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primitive Reflexes are the first part of the brain to develop and should only remain active for the first few months of life. In typical development, these reflexes naturally inhibit in sequential order during the first year, and replacement reflexes, called postural reflexes, emerge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brain-Building Tip of the Month

If your child wants to start picking out their clothes, start with simple options. Give them a limited number of options, like two pairs of shorts to pick from. Making decisions helps build executive function skills.

Research in Brief

Infant Sounds Have Purpose. Researchers have discovered that babies make sounds that are more purposeful and less random and more self-driven than previously believed.

Posters, Videos, More ...

Upcoming Events

Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If your child wants to start picking out their clothes, start with simple options. Give them a limited number of options, like two pairs of shorts to pick from. Making decisions helps build executive function skills. Infant Sounds Have Purpose .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the iPad affects young children, and what we can do about it: Lisa Guernsey at TEDxMidAtlantic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The other day, while I was doing housework, I gave my youngest child my father's iPad to entertain himself.

However, after a while I felt uneasy because I wasn't keeping track of how much time he spent in front of the screen, nor what content he was watching. So I told him it was time to put the device away.

He got mad.

He was yelling, kicking, clutching the iPad, and trying to push me away with the strength of an angry child under five.

I admit that it wasn't my finest moment as a parent, and his violent reaction really upset me.

My older children are already navigating the world of social media, virtual reality, and online games, which also worries me sometimes.

I hear them teasing each other that it's time to "touch the grass," which in their jargon means leaving the digital world behind and going outside.

The late Steve Jobs, who was CEO of Apple when the iPad was introduced, was known for not allowing his children to use it.

Bill Gates also stated that he limited his children's access to technology.

Screen time has become synonymous with bad things, and is considered a cause of the increase in youth depression, behavioral problems, and lack of sleep.

Renowned neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield even claims that the Internet and video games can have harmful effects on the adolescent brain.

Back in 2013, she compared the negative impacts of excessive screen time to the early days of climate change, a significant change that people didn't take seriously at the time.

Today, many people take it seriously.

However, warnings about the dark side of the digital world may not reveal the whole picture.

An editorial in the British Medical Journal states that Baroness Greenfield's claims about the impact of screens on the brain "are not based on a fair scientific assessment of the evidence... and are misleading to parents and others."

And another group of British scientists claims that there is a lack of concrete scientific evidence about the negative impact of screens.

So, are we wrong to worry about and limit our children's access to tablets and smartphones?

Is it really as bad as it seems?

Psychology professor Pete Etchels is one of the scientists who claim that evidence of the harms of screens is lacking.

He analyzed hundreds of studies on screen time and mental health, along with a large amount of data on young people and their screen usage habits.

In his book Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time, he argues that the science behind the conclusions that have captured people's attention is a mixed bag and, in many cases, flawed.

"Concrete scientific evidence to support stories about the dire consequences of screen time simply doesn't exist," he writes.

A 2021 study by the American Psychological Association showed similar results.

Fourteen authors from different universities around the world analyzed 33 studies published between 2015 and 2019.

Screen use, including smartphones, social media and video games, has been found to have "little impact on mental health problems".

While some studies suggest that blue light, such as that emitted by screens, makes it harder to fall asleep because it suppresses the hormone melatonin, a 11 review of 2024 studies from around the world found no conclusive evidence that screen light in the last hour before bed makes it harder to fall asleep.

Problems in scientific research

One of the key problems is that most data on screen time is based on self-reported time, Professor Etchels points out.

In other words, researchers simply ask young people how much time they think they spend in front of screens and how they remember feeling at the time.

He also points out that there are a million ways to interpret these vast amounts of data.

"We have to be careful when looking at causality," he says.

As an example, he cites a statistically significant increase in ice cream sales and skin cancer symptoms during the summer.

Both trends are linked to warmer weather, but they are not causally related, as ice cream does not cause skin cancer.

He also recalls a research project inspired by a general practitioner.

This doctor noticed two things: first, he was having more and more conversations with young people about depression and anxiety, and second, he saw that many young people in waiting rooms were using phones.

"That's why we decided to collaborate with that doctor."

"We said, 'Let's examine this, we can use the data to try to understand this relationship,'" Etchels explains.

Although phone use and symptoms of mental health problems were linked, there was an important additional factor: how much time those who were depressed or anxious spent alone.

Ultimately, the study found that loneliness, not just screen time, was the cause of their mental health problems.

Obsessive monitoring of bad news and screen time

There is also a lack of information about the very nature of screen time.

The term "screen time" itself is too vague, argues Professor Etchels.

Was it a time with content that lifted the mood?

Was it useful? Informative?

Or was it doomscrolling, the obsessive browsing of bad news and content?

Did the young man spend that time alone, or did he talk to friends online?

Each of these factors creates a different experience.

The study by American and British researchers analyzed 11.500 brain scans of children ages nine to 12, along with self-reported assessments of their health and screen time.

Although screen use patterns were associated with changes in the way brain regions are connected, the study found no evidence that screen time was linked to poor mental health or cognitive problems, even among those who spent several hours a day in front of a screen.

The study, which was conducted from 2016 to 2018, was overseen by Professor Andrew Przybylski of the University of Oxford, who studies the impact of video games and social media on mental health.

His peer-reviewed studies show that both video games and social media can improve well-being, not undermine it.

"If you think that screens really do change the brain negatively, that would be clearly seen in large data sets like that," says Professor Etchels.

"But there's no such signal... so the idea that screens are constantly changing the brain and permanently damaging it doesn't seem to be true."

A similar view is held by Professor Chris Chambers, head of the brain stimulation department at Cardiff University, Wales, who is quoted in Professor Etchells' book.

"It would be obvious if there was a decline [in cognitive abilities].

"It would be easy to look at the last, say, 15 years of research...

"If our cognitive system were so sensitive to changes in the environment, we wouldn't be here."

"We would have been selected for extinction long ago."

"A terrible formula for mental health"

Neither Professor Przybylski nor Professor Etchels dispute the serious threat of certain harmful effects of the Internet, such as the recruitment of minors or exposure to explicit and violent content.

But both believe that the current debate about screen time risks making it even more secretive.

Professor Przybylski is concerned about the arguments used to restrict the use of the devices, and even ban them.

He believes that the more tightly screen time is controlled, the more likely it is to become "forbidden fruit" for children.

Many people disagree with this opinion.

The British organization Smartphone Free Childhood says that 150.000 people have already signed their initiative to ban smartphones for children under 14 and delay access to social media until the age of 16.

Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University in the United States (US), says she didn't set out to prove that social media and smartphones were "scary" when she began researching the rise in depression among American teenagers.

But she discovered that they were the only common denominator.

Today, he believes that children should be separated from screens and urges parents to delay their children's access to smartphones for as long as possible.

"A child's brain is more developed and mature at age 16," she claims.

"And the social environment in school and friend groups is much more stable at 16 than at 12."

While she agrees that much of the data on screen time among young people is based on self-reported time, Twenge says that doesn't diminish the veracity of the evidence.

A Danish study published in 2024 included 181 children from 89 families.

Over the course of two weeks, half of the children were limited to a maximum of three hours of screen time per week, and had to hand in their smartphones and tablets.

It was concluded that reduced use of digital devices has a positive impact on psychological symptoms in children and adolescents, as well as encouraging prosocial behavior.

However, the study authors emphasized that further research is needed.

And a British study, in which participants kept a diary of screen time, showed that greater social media use was linked to greater feelings of depression in girls.

"Take that formula: More time spent online, usually alone with a screen, less sleep; less time spent with friends in person."

"It's a terrible formula for mental health," says Professor Twenge.

"I don't know why that's even controversial."

'Parents' opinion'

Professor Etchels and I are talking via video chat.

One of his children and a dog occasionally enter and exit the frame.

I ask him if screens really change children's brains, and he laughs and explains that everything changes the brain and that's how people learn.

Still, he sympathizes with parents who are concerned about possible harmful consequences.

It is certainly not helpful for parents that there are no clear guidelines and that discussions on this topic are full of prejudice and personal judgments.

Jenny Radeski, a pediatrician from the University of Michigan in the US, summed it all up in a speech at the Dana charity foundation.

"Criticism and subjective opinions are increasingly prevalent among parents," she said.

"It seems like a lot of what people talk about is more about guilt-inducing parenting than it is about explaining what the research can tell us," she adds.

"And that's the real problem."

Although I was momentarily disturbed by my youngest child's violent reaction to the iPad, I later realized that he reacted similarly in situations unrelated to screens, such as when he was playing hide-and-seek with his brothers and didn't want to go to bed.

The topic of screen time for children is often brought up in conversations with other parents.

Some of us are stricter, some more lenient on this issue.

Official recommendations are currently inconsistent.

Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health in the United Kingdom (UK) recommend specific screen time limits for children.
On the other hand, the World Health Organization (WHO) advises that children under one year of age spend no screen time at all, and no more than an hour a day for children under four years of age (although, when you read the document carefully, you can see that the primary goal is to encourage physical activity).
The bigger problem is that there is not enough scientific evidence to make a definitive recommendation, which is why the scientific community is divided despite strong social pressure to limit children's access to technology.

And without established guidelines, are we creating an unequal playing field for children - those who are already well-versed in technology by adulthood, and those who are not and are therefore more vulnerable?

In any case, the stakes are high.

If screens really are harmful to children, it could be years before science proves it.

And if in the end it is concluded that they are not harmful, it means that we have wasted time, energy, and money trying to keep children away from something that could be extremely beneficial.

Meanwhile, technology is constantly evolving.

Screens are evolving into wearable devices like smart glasses, social networks are creating smaller communities of users who share similar interests and make deeper connections, and people are using artificial intelligence chatbots to solve homework and even for therapy.

Technology is already so present in our lives, regardless of whether or not we allow our children to access it.
Illustrations: Jodi Lai BBC is in Serbian from now on and on YouTube, follow us

News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of screen time on children's brains is more complex than it seems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Screen time has become synonymous with bad things, and is considered a cause of the rise in youth depression, behavioral problems and lack of sleep.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bruce Perry 01   The Neurosequential Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Harkla - Parenting Tips from Therapists 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Signs of Retained Primitive Reflexes in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the Pyramid Model?

The Pyramid Model is a framework of evidence-based practices for promoting young children's healthy social and emotional development.

Who uses the Pyramid Model?

The Pyramid Model provides guidance for:

early childhood special education personnel

early intervention personnel

early educators

families

other professionals

Who created the Pyramid Model?

The Pyramid Model was developed by two national, federally-funded research and training centers: The Center for the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) and Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Youth Children (TACSEI). These centers' faculty represent nationally recognized researchers and program developers in the areas of social skills and challenging behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Basics - National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Pyramid Model for Promoting Social-Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children(Pyramid Model) NCPMI's role in the Pyramid Model It is our goal to provide states with the technical assistance and training to establish the systems and policies needed to adopt and sustain the implementation of the Pyramid Model.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Replaces Teachers With Artificial Intelligence | 10 News First

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Technology is not something we can hide from students’: How NYC Public Schools invited AI into its classrooms - Source

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The school district collaborated with Microsoft on a custom AI-powered teaching assistant that can offer real-time feedback and answers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the brain grows_ stages of development