Abstract
An interesting issue about human tool use is whether people spontaneously and implicitly intend to use an available tool to perform an action that would be impossible without it. Recent research indicates that targets presented just beyond arm’s reach are perceived closer when people intend to reach them with a tool rather than without it. An intriguing issue is whether this effect also occurs when people are not explicitly instructed to use a tool to reach targets. To address this issue, we asked participants to estimate distances that were beyond arm’s reach in three conditions. Participants who held passively a long baton underestimated the distances as compared to participants with no baton (Experiment 1). To examine whether this effect resulted from holding the baton, we asked participants to estimate distances while holding passively a shorter baton (Experiment 2). We found that holding this short baton did not influence distance perception. Our findings demonstrate that when people aim at performing a task beyond their action capabilities, they spontaneously and implicitly intend to use a tool if it substantially extends their action capabilities. These findings provide interesting insights into the understanding of the link between the emergence of tool use, intention, and perception.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As suggested by Witt and Proffitt (2008), we chose “to use a between-subjects design so that participants were unaware of the other conditions and thus were less likely to guess our hypothesis and adjust their distance judgments to be based on anything other than their perception of the distance to the target” (p. 1483).
To avoid the frequent problem of sphericity assumption, we performed our comparisons for Experiments 1 and 2 with one degree of freedom (Judd et al. 2009).
We designed Experiment 2 only after obtaining the results of Experiment 1. So, it is noteworthy that combining the data from Experiments 1 and 2 violates the statistical assumption of random assignment. Nevertheless, we think that there was no reason to believe that the samples differed.
References
Anderson SJ, Yamagishi N, Karavia V (2002) Attentional processes link perception and action. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1225–1232
Beck BB (1980) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. Garland Publishing, New York
Bhalla M, Proffitt DR (1999) Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1076–1096
Cañal-Bruland R, van der Kamp J (2009) Action goals influence action-specific perception. Psychon Bull Rev 16:1100–1105
Cardinalli L, Frassinetti F, Brozzoli C, Urquizar C, Roy AC, Farnè A (2009) Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Curr Biol 19:478–479
Carello C, Grosofsky A, Reichel FD, Solomon HY, Turvey MT (1989) Visually perceiving what is reachable. Ecol Psychol 1:27–54
Davoli CC, Brockmole JR, Witt JK (2012) Compressing perceived distance with remote tool-use: real, imagined, and remembered. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38(1):80–89
Durgin FH, Baird JA, Greenburg M, Russell R, Shaugnessy K, Waymouth S (2009) Who is being perceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychon Bull Rev 16:964–968
Farnè A, Làdavas E (2000) Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. NeuroReport 11:1645–1649
Farnè A, Serino A, Làdavas E (2007) Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool use: determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex 43:436–443
Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston
Gibson KR (1993) Tool use, language and social behavior in relationship to information processing capacities. In: Gibson KR, Ingold T (eds) Tools, language and cognition in human evolution. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 131–137
Girardi G, Lindemann O, Bekkering H (2010) Context effects on the processing of action-relevant object features. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:330–340
Goldenberg G, Hagmann S (1998) Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 36:581–589
Goldenberg G, Spatt J (2009) The neural basis of tool use. Brain 132:1645–1655
Goldenberg G, Hartmann-Schmid K, Sürer F, Daumüller M, Hermsdörfer J (2007) The impact of dysexecutive syndrome on use of tools and technical devices. Cortex 43:424–435
Hartmann K, Goldenberg G, Daumüller M, Hermsdörfer J (2005) It takes the whole brain to make a cup of coffee: the neuropsychology of naturalistic actions involving technical devices. Neuropsychologia 43:625–637
Holmes NP, Sanabria D, Calvert GA, Spence C (2007) Tool-use: capturing multisensory spatial attention or extending multisensory peripersonal space? Cortex 43:469–489
Humphreys GW (2001) Objects, affordances, action. Psychologist 14:408–412
Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport 7:2325–2330
Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8:71–78
Judd CM, McClelland GH, Ryan CS (2009) Data analysis: a model comparison approach. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York
Leroi-Gourhan A (1971) L’homme et la matière. Albin Michel, Paris
Leroi-Gourhan A (1973) Milieu et techniques. Albin Michel, Paris
Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Bakdash JZ, Stefanucci JK, Proffitt DR (2009a) Asymmetrical body perception: a possible role for neural body representations. Psychol Sci 20:1373–1380
Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Stefanucci JK, Bakdash JZ, Proffitt DR (2009b) The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:1649–1660
Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2011) Taking a hands-on approach: apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1432–1441
Maravita A, Husain M, Clarke K, Driver J (2001) Reaching with the tool extends visual-tactile interactions into far space: evidence from cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 39:580–585
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Allain P, Aubin G, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Richard I, Le Gall D (2007) Des troubles praxiques aux troubles techniques: une étude de deux cas. Rev Neuropsychol 17:231–259
Osiurak F, Aubin G, Allain P, Jarry C, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Richard I, Le Gall D (2008a) Different constraints on grip selection in brain-damaged patients: object use versus object transport. Neuropsychologia 46:2431–2434
Osiurak F, Aubin G, Allain P, Jarry C, Richard I, Le Gall D (2008b) Object utilization and object usage: a single-case study. Neurocase 14:169–183
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Allain P, Aubin G, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Richard I, Bernard I, Le Gall D (2009) Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage: the technical reasoning model. Cortex 45:769–783
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2010) Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychol Rev 117:517–540
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2011) Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis: new perspectives on apraxia of tool use. Neuropsychologia 49:299–312
Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behav Brain Sci 31:109–129
Phillips JC, Ward R (2002) S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis Cogn 9:540–558
Proffitt DR (2006) Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspect Psychol Sci 1:110–122
Proffitt DR, Linkenauger SA (in press) Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In: Prinz W, Beisert M, Herwig A (eds) Tutorials in action science. MIT Press, Cambridge
Proffitt DR, Stefanucci J, Banton T, Epstein W (2003) The role of effort in distance perception. Psychol Sci 14:409–428
Seed A, Byrne R (2010) Animal tool-use. Curr Bio 20:R1032–R1039
Shaw R (2003) The agent-environment interface: Simon’s indirect or Gibson’s direct coupling. Ecol Psychol 15:37–106
Shaw R, Turvey MT, Mace W (1982) Ecological psychology: the consequence of a commitment to realism. In: Weimer W, Palermo D (eds) Cognition and the symbolic process. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 159–226
Tipper SP, Paul MA, Hayes AE (2006) Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13:493–498
Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846
Van der Hoort B, Guterstam A, Ehrsson HH (2011) Being Barbie: the size of one’s own body determines the perceived size of the world. PLoS One 6:e20195
Wagman JB, Taylor KR (2005) Perceiving affordances for aperture crossing for the person-plus-object system. Ecol Psychol 17:105–130
Warren WH, Whang S (1987) Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:371–383
Witt JK (2011a) Action’s effect on perception. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:201–206
Witt JK (2011b) Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serves as indirect measures of perceived distance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1148–1156
Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2008) Action-specific influences on distance perception: a role for motor simulation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:1479–1492
Witt JK, Proffitt DR, Epstein W (2004) Perceiving distance: a role of effort and intent. Perception 33:570–590
Witt JK, Proffitt DR, Epstein W (2005) Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:880–888
Yoon EY, Heinke D, Humphreys GW (2002) Modelling direct perceptual constraints on action selection. Vis Cogn 9:615–661
Yoon EY, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (2010) The paired-object affordance effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:812–824
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Osiurak, F., Morgado, N. & Palluel-Germain, R. Tool use and perceived distance: when unreachable becomes spontaneously reachable. Exp Brain Res 218, 331–339 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3036-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3036-5