Fisher-Price's Apptivity Seat Is Bad for Babies
As a technology reporter and mommy blogger, you’d think the
Fisher-Price Apptivity Seat for newborns — an infant seat with a holder
for an iPad — would be something I appreciate. But I do not. Nor, it
seems, do a number of advocacy groups that want it
pulled off the market because they think iPads and babies are a dangerous combination.
Fisher-Price insists its seat is a sign of the times and age
appropriate. I have done enough homework on early childhood development
to tell you that not only is this seat a symptom of lazy parenting, it
is guaranteed to make your baby more stupid.
It Takes Effort
Those of us who are parents know that raising children takes much
more effort than we had originally planned, and this just doesn't sit
well with some people. Does the Fisher-Price Apptivity Seat promote
laziness? I’m not sold on that. The kind of parent that overuses baby
seats and hardly holds or interacts with their children may find that
the Apptivity Seat supports their lifestyle. But if it wasn't available,
they'd just use the TV.
What's more, research suggests it might be detrimental to a child's development.
The Wrong Stimulation
Tablets give off blue light, which has been shown to
disrupt sleep patterns. This isn't ideal for newborns, who are supposed to sleep every 90 minutes, according to pediatrician
Marc Weissbluth, author of
Healthy Sleep Patterns, Happy Child. Naps promote healthy growth, so why would you want to disrupt them?
In
Your Brain On Childhood,
developmental psychologist Gabrielle Principe outlines the way that an
infant’s brain develops. Screen time can actually delay that growth. She
says babies learn through eye contact and interaction with the world.
In fact, humans are the only primates with the whites of our eyes
showing, Principe explains, which means we teach with our eyes. When we
say the word “apple,” our babies know what we mean because they follow
our pupils to that object.
When babies look at a screen, they're
not following their parents' eyes and movements; instead, they are
staring at something that does not interact with them. Sure, apps may
try to engage babies, but they don't have eyes or limbs. Babies can
neither make eye contact with, nor imitate an avatar — no matter how
cute. Most developers of children's apps know this; that's why most apps
are written for children over 2, who are far too big for the Apptivity
Seat.
Screen the Screen
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time before
babies are at least 2 years old. I admit that I did not abide by this
rule, but I also avoided handing my children a tablet just to shut them
up. I played carefully selected apps with them. I used the tablet as an
interactive book — not as a babysitter. I made and still make efforts to
limit screen time.
There will come a day when we have to tear
electronics out of our kids' hands. We will beg them to talk to us, look
at us, interact with us. I am painfully aware of this. So why place
them in front of screens almost from the moment they emerge from the
womb?
In
Brain Rules For Baby,
brain scientist John Medina says there are two statistically
significant ways to boost a child's intellect: Talk to your baby, and
nurse for up to a year. Not everyone can do those things, but do you
want a tablet in your way while you try?
If you’re a lazy parent, you’ll come up with plenty of excuses to defend Fisher-Price's
$80 Apptivity Seat. But if you’ve done your homework, and read the research on early childhood and brain development, you’ll steer clear of it.
