The origin of “brain-rot”

The term “brain-rot” first appeared in 1854, recorded in literature by Henry David Thoreau in his book, Walden, written in his quest for knowledge of the self and nature. Thoreau used it to describe the “dulling of our [human] perception”, an oversimplification of our understanding of the world around us. Fast forward 170 years, “brain-rot” was voted Word of the Year 2024 by Oxford University Press. Since Thoreau’s day, “brain-rot” has become a meme to describe the experience of low-quality video consumption.

More seriously, “brain-rot” describes the cognitive decline and mental exhaustion because of information overload after excessive screentime. Symptoms of so-called “brain-rot” include pulling away from real-world connections, a distorted sense of reality, increased risk of emotional fatigue and cognitive decline. These effects resemble those of dementia. As dementia typically occurs much later in life, this has fueled concerns about dementia risk in young people.

Information Overload and the Digital Age

Information overload leading to symptoms associated with “brain-rot” happens through consumption of short form content (SFC). This type of online content has a maximum duration of three minutes and is offered in video format. Videos that go viral often fall within the range of 7–15 seconds. Documentaries such as The Social Dilemma have popularised understanding of how increasingly smart algorithms are able to provide users personalised content in the form of a limitless “For You” page. This endless supply of SFC results in “brain-rot”, as lots of information can be consumed quickly, without little of it being committed to memory.

The brain on SFC

What actually happens to the brain when we watch SFC? In general, observing new information triggers chemicals in the brain responsible for our reactions to the outside world, such as our emotions and behaviours. Dopamine is one of these important chemicals. It is often known as the “feel-good” chemical because it is released when we engage in behaviours like eating, forming bonds, or completing a task. Dopamine positively reinforces behaviour, making us repeat actions to receive the reward of a positive experience.

This was useful in the prehistoric times as it gave humans the motivational drive to find food and mates, increasing their chances of survival. In the digital age, dopamine is released much more easily than before. Scrolling on Instagram Reels or TikTok provides us with that same burst of dopamine without much effort. Our brains see this as a good trade off: little energy is spent and lots of dopamine spikes, making us anticipate reward as a result of scrolling. However, when lots of dopamine is released over a short period of time, the brain becomes desensitised to it. In time, this forms the basis for addiction. Desensitisation is where addictive behaviour begins, as a person attempts to get the same dopamine “hit” they felt at the beginning of addiction. In the long term, SFC users may no longer feel motivated to do something new, as the brain has become numb to dopamine, and the reward centres of the brain are no longer firing up like they used to.

Brain chemicals aside, the structure of our brain is also affected by excessive screen time. Brain cells, known as neurons, make up neural networks that allow different parts of the brain to communicate and produce appropriate human behaviour. These networks are present in both white matter and grey matter of the brain, each with their own, specific functions. White matter is important for learning, communication, and cognition, whereas grey matter is important for thinking and voluntary movement. Exposure to excessive screen time can reduce both grey and white brain matter, giving rise to impaired cognitive ability.

Dementia and Cognitive Decline

Dementia is an umbrella term for brain disorders that affect memory function. Age is the biggest risk factor in dementia, and with an aging population worldwide, more people are estimated to get dementia in the future. In dementia disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, numbers are expected to triple from 50 million in 2025 to 150 million in 2050.

Current estimates of future dementia cases are based on sex, race and ethnicity, but do not consider the disparities of technology exposure between generations. A good indicator of the generational divide in technology exposure is the age at which a person first interacts with technology on a regular basis. For a person born in the 1970s this is four years old, whereas a person born in the 2020s begins interacting with technology at four months old. Increased screen time in children reduces linguistic development, sociability with others, emotional regulation and sleep quality4. These are the very functions that decline in dementia.

Characteristics of “brain-rot” as a result of SFC consumption are reduced memory and attention span. In young people, 2-3 hours of screen time a day reduces short-term memory and concentration. Brain imaging shows reductions in brain areas responsible for memory and executive function. These findings are concerning: excessive screen use appears to impact the same neural regions and cognitive functions that are compromised in neurodegenerative disorders.

This overlap suggests that the future incidence of dementia may be underestimated. If younger generations are already showing early cognitive effects linked to heavy screen use, predictions that rely on age-related factors may fall short. Healthcare systems may be unprepared for this sharp rise in dementia cases.

Risk of dementia in a digital age

Currently, there is no long-term data to suggest that TikTok directly causes dementia. However, the prolonged use of these platforms due to their ability to tap into primal reward pathways in our brains may put younger generations at an increased risk of screen addiction and consequently cognitive impairment.

Furthermore, long-term use of technology exposes users to typical risk factors of dementia, like increased sedentary behaviour, social isolation and disrupted sleep cycles. Even without considering the direct cognitive impact of SFC on the brain, excessive screen time naturally predisposes users to dementia risk factors. For researchers in the future, it will be important that these risk factors are teased apart to be able to assess the impact of technology in the incidence of dementia.

What can you do? Managing “brain-rot” in a digital age

Developing effective strategies to manage SFC remains challenging. Common advice like leaving your phone at home, using app blockers or turning off notifications rarely work long-term; they are simply too easy to undo and impractical for the way we now communicate and navigate the world.

This struggle is echoed in a survey conducted by UNICEF Nederland, which found that 69% of 1000 children and teens (aged 10-18) were in favour of increased limits on social media, with 57% of them agreeing that more rules against “endless scrolling” are needed.

Adults face similar difficulties. Some have resorted to creative ways to reduce their screen time, with one user physically making his phone heavier to make it less usable.External link

In general, digital health researchers recommend that guidance on screen use be provided to expectant parents in the same way that nutritional advice is routinely shared during pregnancy. By encouraging an active lifestyle and reduction in technology exposure early on, parents can foster healthy digital habits in children that are carried into adulthood.

While current evidence does not establish a direct causal link between smartphone use in children and dementia, mild cognitive effects have already been observed in children who are exposed to screens. For young children or adults with a strong interest in technology already established, directly addressing dementia risk factors may indirectly reduce reliance on smartphones. For instance, maintaining an active lifestyle and avoiding prolonged sedentary behaviour through introduction of new hobbies or activities naturally limits time spent on screens. Similarly, practicing good digital hygiene, such as refraining from screen use before bedtime, helps prevent circadian rhythm disruption caused by exposure to blue light. This not only enhances sleep quality but may also lower dementia-related risks.

Adults with unrestricted access to technology can reduce screen time by converting their smartphone into a “dumbphone.” This can be achieved through third-party apps that strip away the device’s stimulating features, leaving only core functions like calling, messaging, and taking photos. By minimising non-essential functionality, like social media notifications, these tools reduce the number of daily notifications, in turn decreasing phone pickups and the likelihood of engaging with distracting content.

Despite the strategies offered here, the ability of the user to self-regulate use of screens and SFC is unclear. The integration of laptops and smartphones into both work and leisure time make screens difficult to avoid. Policy makers could collaborate with the companies that profit from excessive screen time to design a healthier digital environment, providing incentives for switching off and returning to the real world.

Conclusion

“Brain-rot” may be a meme, but it reflects rising concerns about how technology shapes our brain health. The good news is that people are increasingly aware of these potential downsides. With simple strategies to prevent information overload, we can keep technology as a tool rather than a trap. Encouraging healthier screen habits not only helps us now but also teaches future generations to build a balanced relationship with technology. While screens are nearly impossible to eliminate in today’s world, reducing screen time may lower risks associated with dementia, without giving up the benefits of a connected life.