Effect Of Tool Use Research Articles

Knowing your boundaries: no effect of tool-use on body representation following a gather-and-sort task.

Internal representations of the body have received considerable attention in recent years, particularly in the context of tool-use. Results have supported the notion that these representations are plastic and tool-use engenders an extension of the internal representation of the arm. However, the limitations of the literature underlying this tool embodiment process have not been adequately considered or tested. For example, there is some evidence that tool-use effects do not extend beyond simplistic tool-use tasks. To further clarify this issue, 66 participants engaged in a period of tool-augmented reaches in a speeded gather-and-sort task. If task characteristics inherent to simplistic tasks are relevant to putative embodiment effects, it was predicted that there would be no effect of tool-use on tactile distance judgments or forearm bisections. A Bayesian analysis found considerable support for the null hypothesis in both outcome measures, suggesting that some of the evidence for tool embodiment may be based in task characteristics inherent in the narrow range of tool-use tasks used to study them, rather than a tool incorporation process. Potential sources of influence stemming from these characteristics are discussed.

Tool use changes the spatial extension of the magnetic touch illusion.

Characterizing the brain mechanisms that allow humans to use tools to interact with the environment is a major goal in neuroscience. It has been proposed that handheld tools are incorporated into the multisensory representation of the body and its surrounding (peripersonal) space, underlying our remarkable tool use ability. One single-cell recording study in tool-using monkeys provided qualitative support for this hypothesis, and the results from a vast number of human studies employing different experimental paradigms have been ambiguous. Here, we made use of the recently reported magnetic touch illusion-a perceptual correlate of peripersonal space-to examine the effect of tool use on the representation of visuotactile peripersonal space. The results showed that active tool use leads to an extension of the "illusion volume" around the entire length of a tool, which was significantly greater compared with a manual control task. These findings support the notion that the multisensory representation of peripersonal space is extended to incorporate handheld tools and provide a three-dimensional estimation of this remapping process. (PsycINFO Database Record

Chapter 25 - The parietal lobe and tool use

The ability to craft and use tools is a crucial skill of human beings, distinguishing humans from all other species. Humans show a unique capacity to create novel, technologically advanced devices and represent physical causality using tools. In the present chapter we review the effect of tool use in changing body-space multisensory integration and body representation and the fundamental contribution of the parietal lobe to the neural underpinnings of tool use. In the final section we briefly introduce the effect of parietal brain damage on tool use. At the beginning of 20th century, a crucial role for the left parietal lobe for a proper control of gestures, including the pantomimed and actual use of tools, was already clear. Actual available evidence supports a critical role of the parietal lobe for both the lower-level multisensory integration of somatosensory and visual input necessary for the interactions between body, tools, and external objects, and for the representation of the mechanical and conceptual dynamics of tool use. Parietal regions, rather than merely representing the prototypical use of a tool, would be critical to understand the general mechanical interactions of the tool with the environment. The increase of knowledge about such brain mechanisms is of utmost relevance in the present times, characterized by the development of more and more sophisticated technological tools, such as functional prostheses, robotic interfaces, and virtual-reality devices.

The boundaries of overimitation in preschool children: Effects of target and tool use on imitation of irrelevant actions

Overimitation is defined as the imitation of a series of actions, including causally irrelevant ones. Although previous studies have indicated that children’s overimitation tends to be flexible, there is no research directly comparing overimitation occurrences due to types of irrelevant actions such as the target of irrelevant action or tool use. To identify the boundary of overimitation—that is, the point at which it occurs or not—Study 1 focused on the target of causally irrelevant tool-using actions. Specifically, the study examined the demonstration of irrelevant actions toward a main apparatus, a disconnected apparatus, or an actor’s own body, followed by the demonstration of causally relevant actions, to 2-, 3-, and 5-year-old children (N=59). Results indicated that children overimitated actions toward the apparatuses more than they did the actions toward an actor’s body. These results showed that overimitation was affected by the target, the apparatus, or the actor’s own body. Study 2 investigated the effect of tool use toward the disconnected apparatus or an actor’s body based on the findings in Study 1. Concretely, Study 2 added two actions without tool use (e.g., action toward an actor’s own body without tool use and action toward an apparatus without tool use) to Study 1’s actions for comparison. The results of this study showed that children overimitated the action toward the apparatus and the action with the tool more than the action toward an actor’s own body and the action without the tool. Taken together, these findings suggest that two factors are involved in the occurrence of overimitation: the target of the action (i.e., the apparatus) and the use of a tool. The current findings provide suggestions for considering important aspects of overimitation that are worthy of more attention.

P20. Deficit actual tool use in schizophrenia is linked to structural alterations in key regions of planning and executing of tool use and connecting fibers

Introduction Schizophrenia patients frequently suffer from complex motor abnormalities including fine and gross motor disturbances, abnormal involuntary movements, neurological soft signs and parkinsonism. These symptoms occur early in the course of the disease, continue in chronic patients and may deteriorate with antipsychotic medication ( Walther and Strik, 2012 ). Furthermore gesture performance is impaired in patients, including the pantomime of tool use. Whether schizophrenia patients would show difficulties of actual tool use has not yet been investigated. Human tool use is complex and relies on a network of distinct and distant brain areas. We therefore aim to test if schizophrenia patients had difficulties in tool use and to assess associations with structural brain imaging using voxel based morphometry (VBM) and tract based spatial statistics (TBSS). Methods In total, 44 patients with schizophrenia (DSM-5 criteria; 59% men, mean age 38) underwent structural MR imaging and performed the Tool-Use test ( Randerath et al., 2011 ). The test examines the use of a scoop and a hammer in three conditions: pantomime (without the tool), demonstration (with the tool) and actual use (with a recipient object). T1-weighted images were processed using SPM8 and DTI-data using FSL TBSS routines. To assess structural alterations of impaired tool use we first compared gray matter (GM) volume in VBM and white matter (WM) integrity in TBSS data of patients with and without difficulties of actual tool use. Next we explored correlations of Tool use scores and VBM and TBSS data. Group comparisons were family wise error corrected for multiple tests. Correlations were uncorrected (p Results Tool use was impaired in schizophrenia (43.2% pantomime, 11.6% demonstration, 11.6% use). Impairment was related to reduced GM volume and WM integrity. Whole brain analyses detected an effect in the SMA in group analysis. Correlations of tool use scores and brain structure revealed alterations in brain areas of the dorso-dorsal pathway (superior occipital gyrus, superior parietal lobule, and dorsal premotor area) and the ventro-dorsal pathways (middle occipital gyrus, inferior parietal lobule) the action network, as well as the insula and the left hippocampus. Furthermore, significant correlations within connecting fiber tracts - particularly alterations within the bilateral corona radiata superior and anterior as well as the corpus callosum - were associated with Tool use performance. Conclusions Tool use performance was impaired in schizophrenia, which was associated with reduced GM volume in the action network. Our results are in line with reports of impaired tool use in patients with brain lesions particularly of the dorso-dorsal and ventro-dorsal stream of the action network. In addition an effect of tool use on WM integrity was shown within fiber tracts connecting regions important for planning and executing tool use. Furthermore, hippocampus is part of a brain system responsible for spatial memory and navigation.The results suggest that structural brain alterations in the common praxis network contribute to impaired tool use in schizophrenia ( Fig. 1 ).

Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space

Previous studies have shown that using a tool modifies in a short time-scale both near-body space perception and arm-length representation in the body schema. However, to date no research has specifically investigated the effect of tool-use on an action-related perceptual task. We report here a study assessing the effect of tool-use on the perception of reachable space for perceptual estimates made in reference to either the tool or the hand. Using the tool on distal objects resulted in an extension of perceived reachable space with the tool and reduced the variability of reachability estimates. Tool use also extended perceived reachable space with the hand, but with a concomitant increase of the variability of reachability estimates. These findings suggest that tool incorporation into the represented arm following tool-use improves the anticipation of action possibilities with the tool, while hand representation becomes less accurate.

Sex Differences in Performance with the Hand and Arm in near and Far Space: A Possible Effect of Tool Use

Using novel tasks, we tested two predictions from the hunter-gatherer hypothesis concerning sex differences in the motor control of hand and arm and in the visual processing of near and far space. In Study 1 we replicated earlier findings by demonstrating that women scored higher with the hand while men scored higher with the arm. Study 2 tested the motor and visual predictions concurrently and showed that the Muscle*Sex interaction, seen in Study 1, occurs in far as well as near space. However, we failed to confirm that women perform better with visual information from near and men from far space. Instead the relative performance of women and men was the same in far as it was in near space. Drawing on evidence from studies of selective visual neglect we suggest that this outcome arose because tool use causes far space to be re-mapped as near space. Finally, the selective visual neglect literature indicates that the processing of far and near space is located in the ventral and dorsal cortical streams, previously described as two “what”/“where” visual systems. We draw attention to their additional “there”/“here” functions that are sex dimorphic and, as we have shown, modulated by tool use.

Bisecting Lines with Different Tools in Right Brain Damaged Patients: The Role of Action Programming and Sensory Feedback in Modulating Spatial Remapping

In a first experiment we studied, through a line bisection task, (a) the frequency of the selective disruption of far or near space representations in a group of 28 right brain-damaged patients and (b) the effect of tool use on line bisection error in far and near space in order to clarify whether the kind of action performed by the subject influences the extension of space representation, as suggested by previous studies. In a second experiment, carried out on two neglect patients, we asked whether the representation of “near” and “far” space depends on the sensory feedback during the execution of the action or whether it is independent on sensory feedback and more related to the action programmed as a consequence of the kind of tool used. Our data show (a) that dissociations between far and near space neglect are a frequent observation in right brain damaged patients and that most of these patients are able to recode space representations when tools change the spatial relation between the agent's body and the target object; (b) that spatial remapping can be elicited by the kind of action associated to the tool used and by the sensory feedback (either visual or proprioceptive) available during the execution of the task. In particular, presence of tactile proprioceptive feedback elicited remapping of far space into near space, whereas absence of visual feedback induced remapping of near space into far space.

The role of computer tools in experts’ solving ill-structured problems

Abstract The focus of this study is first, the qualitative changes within the human agent as a result of extensive computer tool use (over 5 years), also described as the effect of tool use [Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist , 20 (4), 167–182; Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research , 17 (1), 26–44], and second, the “quantitative changes in accomplishment” of the human agent in the presence of computer tools, also described as effect with-tools [Pea (1985, p. 57); Solomon (1990)]. This research used ill-structured problem solving as the task and experts with more than 6 years of domain and tool experience to document the changes in their knowledge structures. The study also compared the differences between the ill-structured problem solving with and without the computer tool to identify differences that may be a result of the computer’s presence.

Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework

Computer-based learning environments often confront learners with a number of tools, i.e. non-embedded support devices. Such environments assume learners to be good judges of their own learning needs. However, research indicates that students do not always make adequate choices for their learning process. This especially becomes an issue with the use of open learning environments, which are assumed to foster the acquisition of complex problem solving skills. Such open learning environments offer students tools to support their learning. Consequently, it is needed to understand factors that influence tool use and acquire insight in learning effects of tool use. Both issues are addressed in this contribution. A review of the existing literature has been undertaken by performing a search on the Web of Science and the PsycInfo database. Results indicate that there is some evidence for learner, tool and task characteristics to influence tool use. No clear indication was found for a learning effect of tool use. The conclusion proposes a research framework for the systematic study of tools.

Individual Differences in Patterns of Spontaneous Online Tool Use

More than 400 individuals participated in an experiment involving two versions of a computer-based tutor teaching principles of electricity. We examined the relations among elective tool use, learning environment, outcome, and efficiency. We also tested the influence of both individual differences and learning environment on tool-usage behavior. The data showed no differences between the two learning environments (rule application vs. rule induction) with regard to outcome performance or learning efficiency. In addition, neither environment significantly influenced overall tool use. There was a main effect of tool use on learning outcome, but not on learning time. We categorized learners into four groups, based on tool-usage patterns and found that (a) people tended to show stable patterns across time and (b) that patterns differed significantly in terms of learning outcome—it was most effective to use the online tools earlier in the learning process rather than later. In terms of individual differences, we identified the characteristics of learners who evidenced different tool-usage patterns. They varied according to cognitive ability, domain-related interest, and gender. We propose a causal model that takes into account all of these data sources in predicting posttest performance. The article concludes with implications of these findings for those interested in maximizing instructional effectiveness, as well as suggestions for future research directions.