No abstract

Current theories on the role of visuomotor coordination in driving agree that active sampling of the road by the driver informs the arm-motor system in charge of performing actions on the steering wheel. Still under debate, however, is the nature of visual cues and gaze strategies used by drivers. In particular, the tangent point hypothesis, which states that drivers look at a specific point on the inside edge line, has recently become the object of controversy. An alternative hypothesis proposes that drivers orient gaze toward the desired future path, which happens to be often situated in the vicinity of the tangent point. The present study contributed to this debate through the analyses of the distribution of gaze orientation with respect to the tangent point. The results revealed that drivers sampled the roadway in the close vicinity of the tangent point rather than the tangent point proper. This supports the idea that drivers look at the boundary of a safe trajectory envelop near the inside edge line. Furthermore, the study investigated for the first time the reciprocal influence of manual control on gaze control in the context of driving. This was achieved through the comparison of gaze behavior when drivers actively steered the vehicle or when steering was performed by an automatic controller. The results showed an increase in look-ahead fixations in the direction of the bend exit and a small but consistent reduction in the time spent looking in the area of the tangent point when steering was passive. This may be the consequence of a change in the balance between cognitive and sensorimotor anticipatory gaze strategies. It might also reflect bidirectional coordination control between the eye and arm-motor systems, which goes beyond the common assumption that the eyes lead the hands when driving.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Tool-based culture is not unique to humans, but cumulative technological culture is. The social intelligence hypothesis suggests that this phenomenon is fundamentally based on uniquely human sociocognitive skills (e.g., shared intentionality). An alternative hypothesis is that cumulative technological culture also crucially depends on physical intelligence, which may reflect fluid and crystallized aspects of intelligence and enables people to understand and improve the tools made by predecessors. By using a tool-making-based microsociety paradigm, we demonstrate that physical intelligence is a stronger predictor of cumulative technological performance than social intelligence. Moreover, learners' physical intelligence is critical not only in observational learning but also when learners interact verbally with teachers. Finally, we show that cumulative performance is only slightly influenced by teachers' physical and social intelligence. In sum, human technological culture needs "great engineers" to evolve regardless of the proportion of "great pedagogues." Social intelligence might play a more limited role than commonly assumed, perhaps in tool-use/making situations in which teachers and learners have to share symbolic representations. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

No abstract