Absolutely. Children who are “difficult” - and “difficult” normally means “struggling with something they cannot process” - are plonked in front of screens. A lot of parents don’t care to examine why they are “difficult” or why they are struggling, or don’t have the personal resources - intellectual, social, or financial - to work out what’s wrong. So the kids struggle more, and they spend more time in front of screens. For kids with ADHD there’s quite possibly a strong dopamine cycle from using devices. As someone who suffers severely with ADHD I’ve definitely been able to see that I was prone to this before I got a bit more in control of my impulse cycles.

While I agree that it may or may not be true, I'm curious as to what makes it hard for you to "buy it."

I had always thought that anything attention-grabbing was likely involving some dopamingeric systems. It wouldn't surprise me if anything that grabs attention over a sustained amount of time could potentially lead to homeostasis-seeking mechanisms in the involved cognitive systems.

I doubt that humans / mammals evolved in a context with something often grabbed and held focused attention for hours at a time in the same way that is now routine for us to experience with phones, TV, video games, etc.

Conversely, I've wondered if some of the e benefits that some people report with medication are related to giving those systems a bit of a break.

It could end up being entirely false, but I always thought it had at least seemed plausible.

The problem I have with this idea is that while that demographic may fit that pattern, this should only constitute the expected portion of the population that "naturally" exhibit these issues.

The article likely ties into the hypothesis that the occurence of the symptoms are increasing in the population. I don't know if this is true, but anecdotally as a parent I'm seeing these behaviors as more or less the norm in 4-13 year olds that I interact with, and those who don't fit this are the ones you are surprised by.