Creating semantics in tool use

Abstract

This article presents the first evidence for a functional link between tool use and the processing of abstract symbols like Arabic numbers. Participants were required to perform a tool-use task after the processing of an Arabic number. These numbers represented either a small (2 or 3) or a large magnitude (8 or 9). The tool-use task consisted in using inverse pliers for gripping either a small or a large object. The inverse pliers enable to dissociate the hand action from the tool action in relation to the object (i.e., closing the hand led to an opening of the tool and vice versa). The number/tool hypothesis predicts that the quantity representation associated with Arabic numbers will interact with the action of the tool toward the object. Conversely, the number/hand hypothesis predicts that the quantity associated with numbers will interact with the action of the hand toward the tool. Results confirmed the first hypothesis and rejected the second. Indeed, large numbers interacted with the action of the tool, such that participants were longer to perform an "opening-hand/closing-tool" action after the processing of large numbers. Moreover, no effect was detected for small numbers, confirming previous studies which used only finger movements. Altogether, our finding suggests that the well-known finger/number interaction can be reversed with tool use.

On the Temporal Dynamics of Tool Use

“…For instance, van Elk et al (2008) presented participants with pictures of a model using artifacts and asked them to detect whether the goal location was correct (i.e., whether the active part was oriented toward the correct part of the model) or whether the grip was correct (i.e., whether the manipulative part was correctly grasped) They found that the detection of the correctness of the goal location was faster than the detection of the correctness of the grip. Other studies have corroborated this pattern of results in an observational context (e.g., Massen and Prinz, 2007;Naish et al, 2013;Nicholson et al, 2017;Kalénine, 2018, 2019) or in a motor intention paradigm (Osiurak and Badets, 2014;Badets et al, 2017). This pattern was also found in another study in which participants were asked to decide whether word or picture stimuli of artifacts shared the same manipulation or the same function (Garcea and Mahon, 2012).…”

The evolutionary roots of goal-directed mechanisms: A communication account

“…For a semantic processing account and to dissociate body movements from their generated–expected perceptual effects, we recently developed a paradigm that manages a tool-use task during Arabic number processing (Badets et al, 2017, 2020). In these experiments, participants were required to use inverse pliers, such as French snail pliers, after the processing of small or large numbers.…”