Artifact and Tool Categorization

Abstract

This study addresses the issue of artifact kinds from a psychological and cognitive perspective. The primary interest of the investigation lies in understanding how artifacts are categorized and what are the properties people rely on for their identification. According to a classical philosophical definition artifacts form an autonomous class of instances including all and only those objects that do not exist in nature, but are artificial, in the sense that they are made by an artĭfex. This definition suggests that artifacts are classified primarily on the basis of the recognition of their artificial nature. Nevertheless, many psychological and cognitive studies maintain that artifacts are categorized mainly on the basis of the recognition of the function they have been made to accomplish. Since tools are also categorized primarily on the basis of their function, this would imply that artifacts and tools are represented in the same way. In the study participants categorized a set of objects (denoted by words) once as tools and once as artifacts. Results show that reaction times (RTs) are faster in the artifact categorization condition than in the tool categorization condition. This pattern indicates that artifacts and tools are not represented in the same way and that the identification of the members of each class is carried out in the basis of different criteria.

Developing a Framework to Integrate Circularity into Construction Projects

“…. ) an autonomous class of instances including all and only those objects that do not exist in nature, but are artificial, in the sense that they are made by an artȋfex" (p. 407) [28], or in other words, they are made by a human being. The result of developing and studying these artefacts has a prescriptive nature and is aimed at problem solving by professionals in a specific field [29].…”

Situated and distributed cognition in artifact negotiation and trade-specific skills: A cognitive ethnography of Kashmiri carpet weaving practice

“…The relationship between tools and cognition has traditionally been discussed in philosophy, anthropology, archaeology, neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science spawning unsettled debates on various themes from artifact theorization and phenomenology of their use (philosophy), co-evolution of tools and mind (archaeology and anthropology), their neural representation (neuroscience), etc. Psychology and cognitive science accounts have primarily dwelt on mediational roles of tools and artifacts in cognition (Vygotsky, 1978), development of tool use (Kahrs & Lockman, 2014) and tool innovation (Beck, Apperly, Chappell, Guthrie, & Cutting, 2011) among children, artifacts’ versus tools’ representation (Dellantonio, Mulatti, & Job, 2013), categorization (Malt & Sloman, 2006), functional fixedness (German & Barrett, 2005), representational and cognitive functions of artifacts (Hutchins, 1995; Norman, 1991), taxonomy of cognitive artifacts (Heersmink, 2013), human vs. animal tool use (Vaesen, 2012), etc.…”