Thinking Through Tools: What Can Tool-Use Tell Us About Distributed Cognition?

• Authors: Chris Baber
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In this paper, I question the notion that tool-use must be driven by an internal representation which specifies the “motor program” enacted in the behaviour of the tool-user. Rather, it makes more sense to define tool-use in terms of characteristics of the dynamics of this behaviour. As the behaviour needs to be adjusted to suit changes in context, so there is unlikely to be a one-to-one, linear mapping between an action and its effect. Thus, tool-use can best be described using concepts from Nonlinear Dynamics. Such an approach can be used to create a sort of cybernetic model of tool-use. However, there is a danger that such a model can either lead us back to internal representations (in that the comparator used to evaluate feedback during behaviour could be assumed to be pre-defined) or could fail to capture cognitive aspects of behaviour. In particular, the question of how the craftworker’s intent can be enacted in the use of tools to produce a specific object seems to be lost in the cybernetic account. My solution is two-fold. First, the “model” is created on-the-fly and adapted through moment-by-moment interactions in the system of tool-user–tool–material–environment. This means that, rather than assuming a pre-defined internal representation that drives behaviour, I propose that cognition involves the selection of salient parameters that characterize the behaviour and the continued monitoring and management of behaviour in terms of these parameters. Second, intent is only loosely defined a priori but crystallizes through the continued interactions between craftworker and object through a process in which the affordances of the object become apparent to, and responded to by, the craftworker.

Keywords

EN

affordance; tool-use; internal representation; nonlinear dynamics

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 41
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 25-40

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-07-24

Contributors

author

Chris Baber

• University of Birmingham, Great Britain

References

• Baber, C. (2003). Cognition and tool use: Forms of engagement in animal and human tool use. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Baber, C. (2006). Cognitive aspects of tool use. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 3–15.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Baber, C., Cengiz, T. G., & Parekh, M. (2014). Tool use as distributed cognition: How tools help, hinder and define manual skill. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 116, 1–14.[Crossref][WoS]
• Baber, C., Cengiz, T. G., Starke, S., & Parekh, M., (2015a). Objective classification of performance in the use of a piercing saw in jewellery making. Applied Ergonomics, 51, 211–221.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Baber, C., Starke, S., & Cengiz, T. G. (2015b). Using 1/f scaling to study variability and dexterity in simple tool using tasks. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
• Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Biryukova, E. V., & Bril, B. (2008). Organization of goaldirected action at a high-level of motor skill: The case of stone-knapping in India. Motor Control, 12, 181–209.
• Bril, B., Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Wenban-Smith, F., & Dietrich, G. (2010). The role of expertise in tool use: Skill differences in functional action adaptations to task constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 825–839.[Crossref][WoS]
• Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12, 478–484.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Cutler, A. (1994). The hand of the master: craftsmanship, ivory and society in Byzantium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Grafton, S. T., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuoroimage, 6, 231–236.[Crossref]
• Guastello, S. J. (2000). Nonlinear dynamics in psychology. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 6, 11–29.[Crossref]
• Higuchi, S., Imamizu, H., & Kawato, M. (2007). Cerebellar activity evoked by common tool-use execution and imagery tasks: an fMRI study. Cortex, 43, 350–358.[Crossref][PubMed][WoS]
• Ingvaldsen, R. P., & Whiting, H. T. A. (1997). Modern views on motor skill learning are not ‘representative’ ! Human Movement Science, 16, 705–732.[Crossref]
• Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2004). The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 71–78.[Crossref]
• Kamm K., Thelen E., & Jensen J. L. (1990). A dynamical systems approach to motor development. Physical Therapy, 70, 763–775.[PubMed]
• Kello, C. T., Beltz, B. C., Holden, J. G., & van Orden, G. C. (2007). The emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 551–568.
• Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Krist, V. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 203–218.[Crossref][WoS]
• Latash M. L., Scholz, J. P., & Schöner, G. (2002). Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 30, 26–31.[Crossref]
• Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.[Crossref][WoS]
• Mitra, S., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (1997). Chaos in human rhythmic movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 195–198.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Newell K. M., & Corcos, D. M. (1993). Issues in variability and motor control. In K. M. Newell & D. M. Corcos (Eds.), Variability and motor control (pp. 1–12). Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics.
• Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action. New York: Springer.
• Parry, R., Dietrich, G., & Bril, B. (2014). Tool use ability depends on understanding of functional dynamics and not specific joint coordination profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 306, 1–15.[WoS][Crossref]
• Pye, D. (1968). The nature and art of workmanship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rein, R., Bril, B., & Nonaka, T. (2013). Coordination strategies used in stone knapping. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 150, 539–550.[WoS]
• Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of aim, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444–474.[Crossref]
• Roux, V., Bril, B., & Dietrich, G. (1995). Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping: The case of stone-bead knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology, 27, 63–87.[Crossref]
• Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366–375.[Crossref]
• Summers, J. J., & Anson, J. G. (2009). Current status of the motor program: Revisited. Human Movement Science, 28(5), 566–577.[WoS][PubMed][Crossref]
• Thelen E. (1990). Motor development: a new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50, 79–95.[Crossref]
• Turvey, M. (1990). Coordination. American Psychologist, 45, 938–953.[Crossref]
• Van Leeuwen, L., Smitsman, A., & van Leeuwen, C. (1994). Affordances, perceptual complexity, and the development of tool use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 174–191.[Crossref]
• Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 331–350.[Crossref]
• Wagenmakers, E.-J., Farrell, S., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Estimation and interpretation of l/f alpha noise in human cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 579–615.[Crossref]
• Weisberg, J., van Turennout, M., & Martin, A. (2007). A neural system for learning about object function. Cerebral Cortex, 17(3), 513–521.[WoS][Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/slgr-2015-0018