On the Temporal Dynamics of Tool Use

We humans have a proclivity for materiality as evidenced by our ability to use and make tools or build constructions. Over generations, this proclivity has led to considerably modify the surface of the Earth, a phenomenon known as cumulative technological culture (Osiurak and Reynaud, 2020). This is a fact: we are nowadays surrounded by artifacts (defined here as tools made for a specific purpose). In this context, the epistemological belief can emerge that humans have become mere manipulators, much more concerned with how to manipulate artifacts to make them work than to understand how they work (Osiurak et al., 2020). At a neurocognitive level, this belief has led to the hypothesis that the human brain has developed adaptive mechanisms enabling the selection and planning of the appropriate motor actions1 to manipulate artifacts (Heilman et al., 1982; Rothi et al., 1991; Buxbaum, 2001; van Elk et al., 2014). Thus, when we see an artifact, we might automatically activate not only the motor representation of how to grasp it (so-called structural affordance; e.g., a power grip to grasp and move a hammer from one location to another) but also the motor representation of how to use it in a functional way2 (so-called functional affordance; e.g., a power grip and a broad oscillation of the elbow joint to grasp and use a hammer to pound a nail; Buxbaum and Kalénine, 2010; Thill et al., 2013; see also Bach et al., 2014; Kourtis and Vingerhoets, 2015; Kourtis et al., 2018). This is the automatic activation hypothesis of functional affordances3. In this Opinion article, we question the theoretical and empirical validity of the strong

[1]  Christian Michel Overcoming the modal/amodal dichotomy of concepts , 2020, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  F. Osiurak,et al.  Technition: When Tools Come Out of the Closet , 2020, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[3]  M. Brandimonte,et al.  Looking to recognise: the pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Kiril Kostov,et al.  Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation , 2020, Psychological Research.

[5]  F. Binkofski,et al.  The prominent role of perceptual salience in object discrimination: overt discrimination of graspable side does not activate grasping affordances , 2020, Psychological research.

[6]  F. Osiurak,et al.  The elephant in the room: What matters cognitively in cumulative technological culture , 2019, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  F. Osiurak,et al.  To Watch is to Work: a Review of NeuroImaging Data on Tool Use Observation Network , 2019, Neuropsychology Review.

[8]  M. Brandimonte,et al.  Tool and object affordances: An ecological eye-tracking study , 2019, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  Solène Kalénine,et al.  What first drives visual attention during the recognition of object-directed actions? The role of kinematics and goal information , 2019, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[10]  S. Laham,et al.  A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect , 2019, Cognition.

[11]  Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,et al.  Investigating Grounded Conceptualization: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tool Handles Is Due to Spatial Attention , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  F. Binkofski,et al.  The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: evidence for a location coding account , 2018, Psychological Research.

[13]  D. Kourtis,et al.  Concurrent Cortical Representations of Function- and Size-Related Object Affordances: An fMRI Study , 2018, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience.

[14]  S. Kalénine,et al.  Timing of grip and goal activation during action perception: a priming study , 2018, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Looking for intoolligence: A unified framework for the cognitive study of human tool use and technology. , 2018, The American psychologist.

[16]  Daniel N Bub,et al.  Time Course of Motor Affordances Evoked by Pictured Objects and Words , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  François Osiurak,et al.  What is an affordance? 40 years later , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[18]  Caruana Fausto,et al.  Types of abduction in tool behavior , 2017 .

[19]  Laurel J Buxbaum,et al.  Learning, Remembering, and Predicting How to Use Tools: Distributed Neurocognitive Mechanisms Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016) , 2017, Psychological review.

[20]  Aymar de Rugy,et al.  Creating semantics in tool use , 2017, Cognitive Processing.

[21]  F. Binkofski,et al.  The challenge of abstract concepts. , 2017, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Patric Bach,et al.  Understanding the Goals of Everyday Instrumental Actions Is Primarily Linked to Object, Not Motor-Kinematic, Information: Evidence from fMRI , 2017, PloS one.

[23]  Emanuelle Reynaud,et al.  On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use : A critical review of neuroimaging data , 2016, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[24]  François Osiurak,et al.  Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. , 2016, Psychological review.

[25]  Guy Vingerhoets,et al.  Perceiving objects by their function: An EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances , 2015, Biological Psychology.

[26]  P. Mcmullen,et al.  Accessing embodied object representations from vision: A review. , 2015, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  What is embodied about cognition? , 2015, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[28]  Harold Bekkering,et al.  Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. , 2014, Physics of life reviews.

[29]  Patric Bach,et al.  The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[30]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Unconscious Automatic Brain Activation of Acoustic and Action-related Conceptual Features during Masked Repetition Priming , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  F. Osiurak,et al.  Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm , 2014, Cognition.

[32]  G. Goldenberg Apraxia – The cognitive side of motor control , 2013, Cortex.

[33]  R. Proctor,et al.  Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: evidence for a basis in spatial coding , 2013, Psychological research.

[34]  T. Ziemke,et al.  Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review , 2013, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[35]  N. Holmes,et al.  To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  Frank E Garcea,et al.  What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[37]  B. Bahrami,et al.  Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics , 2012, Cortex.

[38]  D. McDermott LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT , 2012 .

[39]  R. Proctor,et al.  Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  F. Osiurak,et al.  Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  Guy Dove On the need for Embodied and Dis-Embodied Cognition , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[42]  N. Hodges,et al.  Manipulations to the Timing and Type of Instructions to Examine Motor Skill Performance Under Pressure , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[43]  Lewis A. Wheaton,et al.  The Neuroscience of Storing and Molding Tool Action Concepts: How “Plastic” is Grounded Cognition? , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[44]  R. Proctor,et al.  The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  F. Osiurak,et al.  Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. , 2010, Psychological review.

[46]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[47]  A. Chatterjee Disembodying cognition , 2010, Language and Cognition.

[48]  G. Goldenberg,et al.  The neural basis of tool use. , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[49]  Lawrence W Barsalou,et al.  Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  G. Vingerhoets,et al.  Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[51]  K. Heilman,et al.  The disconnection apraxias , 2008, Cortex.

[52]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[53]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[54]  L. Barsalou Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[55]  W. Prinz,et al.  Activation of action rules in action observation. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[56]  Ed Symes,et al.  Visual object affordances: object orientation. , 2007, Acta psychologica.

[57]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[58]  R. Passingham,et al.  Objects automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.

[59]  S. Anderson,et al.  Attentional processes link perception and action , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[60]  Sarah H. Creem,et al.  Defining the cortical visual systems: "what", "where", and "how". , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[61]  L. Buxbaum Ideomotor Apraxia: a Call to Action , 2001, Neurocase.

[62]  R. Cubelli,et al.  Cognition in Action: Testing a Model of Limb Apraxia , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[63]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[64]  K. Heilman,et al.  A Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis , 1991 .

[65]  K. Heilman,et al.  Two forms of ideomotor apraxia , 1982, Neurology.

[66]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .