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., Manolova, V.R. (2025) Screen Addiction – Biomarkers, Developmental Damage and Recovery. Nootism 1(1), 6-18, ISSN 3033-1765
*This paper was presented by Dr. Stoyan Vezenkov at the First Science Conference "Screen Children" on November 26, 2022, in Sofia, Bulgaria. The report was revised and updated as of March 2025.
Abstract
Screen addiction is a far more widespread issue than most researchers acknowledge or publish, surpassing even the alarming data that has emerged in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. This underestimation stems, on the one hand, from the self-imposed limitations of screening procedures and, on the other, from the comorbidity of screen addiction with numerous severe disorders—such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) etc.—in which screen addiction is rarely examined as a primary factor in their etiology. Instead, it is often treated as a consequence of these conditions or as an independent phenomenon, rather than an underlying cause.
Most studies on internet and gaming addiction focus primarily on digital content, failing to recognize that addiction can develop regardless of the content or screen device used—whether it be TV, smartphones, tablets, computers, or virtual reality (VR) systems. Our research demonstrates that screen addiction, regardless of its terminology (digital, internet, media, gaming, technological addiction, etc.), must be examined holistically by considering three critical factors: (1) The age of onset; (2) Sex differences; (3) Duration of addiction (how long it has been present). Only through a comprehensive evaluation of these factors could researchers begin to identify objective biomarkers of screen addiction. Without this approach, all machine-learning and deep-learning analyses risk becoming contaminated, superficial, and fragmented, failing to capture the true genesis of the problem. Consequently, therapeutic interventions will be significantly less effective.
This study presents individual cases in which biomarkers of screen addiction significantly deviate from those previously reported in the literature, offering new insights for a deeper understanding of the condition, while taking into account the three factors described above.
Our observations have revealed several common neurophysiological patterns associated with screen addiction:
These biomarkers varied based on the age of onset, sex, and duration of screen addiction, underscoring its complex and individualized impact on the brain. A particularly significant conclusion from our findings is that the dominant frequency in a given brain region at the onset of screen addiction becomes imprinted and persists into later developmental stages. This pattern could serve as an objective predictor for determining the age of onset.
To further our investigation, we empirically discovered and introduced the Screen-Induced Pathological Vestibular Reflex Test (SIPVR-T)—a highly sensitive tool that correlates with the severity of early screen addiction up to the age of 12.
Our therapeutic approach provided strong evidence supporting these findings: We treat screen addiction and observe changes in biomarkers and symptoms—those that disappear were caused by screen addiction, while those that persist are unrelated.
This cause-and-effect distinction further validates our findings and underscores the urgent need for targeted treatment and preventive strategies to address screen addiction effectively.
Keywords: screen addiction, biomarkers, qEEG, functional fragmentation, HRV, complex therapy, biofeedback, Screen-Induced Pathological Vestibular Reflex
Sehen Sie den vollständigen Artikel hier: https://www.nootism.eu/articles/issue01-april2025/screen-addiction-biomarkers-developmental-damage-and-recovery-1
