ArticleScientific reports2026
An eye tracking examination of fantasy television's immediate influence on children's executive functions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have investigated the immediate impact of viewing fantastical television (TV) programs on children's cognitive function; however, the results have been inconsistent. This study experimentally investigates the immediate impact of TV content (high fantasy vs. low fantasy) on the executive functions (EFs), specifically visual attention and inhibitory control, of 65 children aged 5-7. Children were randomly assigned to view either high fantasy (HF) or low fantasy (LF) programs, and their EFs were assessed with eye-tracking pro/anti-saccade tasks before and after viewing the program. The results showed no significant impact of HF content on inhibitory control or visual attention after controlling for age, screen time habits, and EF-related difficulties. Bayesian analysis further supported these null findings. The absence of an effect may be attributed to the specific eye-tracking tasks used, the developmental stage of the participants, and the cultural context. These findings challenge the universality of the fantasy deficit, emphasizing the complex nature of media effects and the critical role of methodology, development, and culture in shaping cognitive outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.