Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches.

Abstract

Tool use is a defining feature of human species. Therefore, a fundamental issue is to understand the cognitive bases of human tool use. Given that people cannot use tools without manipulating them, proponents of the manipulation-based approach have argued that tool use might be supported by the simulation of past sensorimotor experiences, also sometimes called affordances. However, in the meanwhile, evidence has been accumulated demonstrating the critical role of mechanical knowledge in tool use (i.e., the reasoning-based approach). The major goal of the present article is to examine the validity of the assumptions derived from the manipulation-based versus the reasoning-based approach. To do so, we identified 3 key issues on which the 2 approaches differ, namely, (a) the reference frame issue, (b) the intention issue, and (c) the action domain issue. These different issues will be addressed in light of studies in experimental psychology and neuropsychology that have provided valuable contributions to the topic (i.e., tool-use interaction, orientation effect, object-size effect, utilization behavior and anarchic hand, tool use and perception, apraxia of tool use, transport vs. use actions). To anticipate our conclusions, the reasoning-based approach seems to be promising for understanding the current literature, even if it is not fully satisfactory because of a certain number of findings easier to interpret with regard to the manipulation-based approach. A new avenue for future research might be to develop a framework accommodating both approaches, thereby shedding a new light on the cognitive bases of human tool use and affordances. (PsycINFO Database Record

Involvement of Technical Reasoning More Than Functional Knowledge in Development of Tool Use in Childhood

“…These findings suggest that real tool use (RTU; e.g., the daily use of a spoon by a toddler to eat) and mechanical problem solving (MPS) skills could be based on cognitive mechanisms of a different nature. This is partly inconsistent with the technical reasoning hypothesis mainly developed from the study of left brain-damaged patients, according to which familiar tool use and MPS should be supported by common cognitive mechanisms (Le Gall, 1998; Osiurak et al, 2010; Osiurak, 2014; Osiurak and Badets, 2016). The main goal of the present study is to address this issue, by exploring how children aged from 6 to 14 years perform on RTU and MPS tasks.…”

“…Specifically, several studies have shown in left brain-damaged patients a strong association between conventional tool use (in a prototypical or unusual manner) and MPS (Goldenberg and Hagmann, 1998; Osiurak et al, 2009; for review see Osiurak and Badets, 2016; Reynaud et al, 2016). This has led to the formulation of the hypothesis that technical reasoning is involved in any tool use, whether conventional or new/unusual (Le Gall, 1998; Osiurak et al, 2010; Osiurak, 2014).…”

Sensitivity to hierarchical relations among affordances in the assembly of asymmetric tools

“…Some scholars have suggested that mechanical reasoning is brought to bear both in tool use and in simulating possible tool use actions (Osiurak and Badets 2016;Osiurak et al 2010). Such claims are based, in part, on neuropsychological data (e.g., Orban and Caruana 2014;Reynaud et al 2016).…”

Mechanical knowledge does matter to tool use even when assessed with a non‐production task: Evidence from left brain‐damaged patients

“…We found a link between tasks assessing mechanical and manipulation knowledge (i.e., alternative tool selection and manipulation‐matching tasks) in both controls and in LBD patients, as already reported in other brain diseases (i.e., Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia; Lesourd, Baumard, Jarry, Etcharry‐Bouyx, et al ., ). However, the link between mechanical and manipulation knowledge is still a matter of debate between the gesture engram and technical reasoning theories (for a discussion see Buxbaum, ; Osiurak & Badets, , ). Buxbaum () proposes the neurocognitive model ‘Two Action Systems Plus’ (2AS+) which includes both mechanical and manipulation knowledge.…”

“…Therefore, the ability to use tools may be sustained by another form of knowledge. The concept of mechanical knowledge refers to the capacity to infer possible uses of both familiar and novel tools from analysis of their structural properties (Buxbaum, ; Daprati & Sirigu, ; Goldenberg & Hagmann, ; Hartmann, Goldenberg, Daumüller, & Hermsdörfer, ; Heilman, Maher, Greenwald, & Rothi, ; Hodges, Bozeat, Lambon Ralph, Patterson, & Spatt, ; Osiurak, ; Osiurak & Badets, ; Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, , ; Osiurak & Lesourd, ; Osiurak et al ., ). An association between impaired tool use and decreased mechanical knowledge has been observed in left brain‐damaged (LBD) patients and in patients with neurodegenerative disorders (Baumard et al ., ; Goldenberg & Hagmann, ; Jarry et al ., ; Lesourd et al ., ).…”