While this paper presents a straightforward systematic review suggesting that there are associations between functional connectivity in the brain and internet ‘addiction’, there are a number of fundamental limitations to be aware of that are critical to any interpretation. 

First, the causal language used throughout is misleading. For example, headings with titles like ‘How does Internet addiction affect the functional connectivity’ and the suggestion of ‘effects’ throughout are inaccurate. Cause and effect cannot be drawn from these studies, yet this is only flagged in the discussion as a major limitation.  

Second, the focus on functional connectivity comes at the expense of any critique about the key measure of interest. Specifically, internet ‘addiction’, which was initially conjured up by Ivan K. Goldberg in 1995 as a joke. Today, the conceptualisation and measurement of internet ‘addiction’ is neither universally accepted and certainly not diagnosable using the survey instruments used in the studies included as part of the review. Similarly, the enormity of activities that the internet allows for immediately makes this definition somewhat redundant.  

Such definitions, despite being widely critiqued, also have a tendency to move the focus away from genuine online harm and towards a conclusion that suggests the removal of technology from peoples’ lives will be helpful. Solid evidence to suggest that removing the internet brings any tangible benefits has not been forthcoming.  

What we do know is that self-reported ‘addiction’ measures, as used in the papers reviewed here, appear to measure something about how much someone worries in general. Indeed, we have repeatedly observed that surveys used to assess related ‘addictions’ measure a poorly defined construct that sometimes overlaps with pre-existing measures of well-being. More importantly, these assessments are weakly associated with the actual time someone spends using digital technologies including the internet.  

This means that any associations between functional connectivity and internet ‘addiction' are at the mercy of multiple confounders. This makes drawing strong conclusions from the papers reviewed almost impossible.