Getting a tool gives wings: Overestimation of tool-related benefits in a motor imagery task and a decision task

Psychological Research

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-9

  Osiurak, François ^a   Morgado, Nicolas ^b   Vallet, Guillaume T ^a   Drot, Marion ^a   Palluel Germain, Richard ^b  

^a Lyon University   (France)

^b UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HAND; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PHYSIOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HAND; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84891661540     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-013-0485-9     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baber, C. (2003). Cognition and tool use: Forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools. London: Talyor & Francis.
2. Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., & Prablanc, C. (1989). The timing of mentally represented actions. Behavioural Brain Research, 34, 35-42.
3. Flusberg, S. J., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Are things that are hard to physically move also hard to imagine moving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 158-164. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-010-0024-2.
4. Gibson, K. R. (1991). Tools, language and intelligence: Evolutionary implications. Man, 26, 255-264.
5. Goldenberg, G., & Iriki, A. (2007). From sticks to coffee-maker: Mastery of tools and technology by human and non-human primates. Cortex, 43, 285-288. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-9452(08)70454-4.
6. Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2007). What puts the how in where? Tool use and the divided visual streams hypothesis. Cortex, 43, 368-375. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-9452(08)70462-3.
7. Kunz, B. R., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Thompson, W. B. (2009). Evidence for motor simulation in imagined locomotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1458-1471. doi: 10. 1037/a0015786.
8. Macramalla, S., & Bridgeman, B. (2009). Anticipated effort in imagined self-rotation. Perception, 38, 79-91. doi: 10. 1068/p5905.
9. Macuga, K. L., Papailiou, A. P., & Frey, S. H. (2012). Motor imagery of tool use: Relationship to actual use and adherence to Fitts' law across tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 169-174. doi: 10. 1007/s00221-012-3004-0.
10. Osiurak, F., Jarry, C., & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review, 117, 517-540. doi: 10. 1037/a0019004.
11. 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. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2010. 12. 041.
12. Osiurak, F., Morgado, N., & Palluel-Germain, R. (2012). Tool use and perceived distance: When unreachable becomes spontaneously reachable. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 331-339. doi: 10. 1007/s00221-012-3036-5.
13. Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109-129. doi: 10. 1017/S0140525X08003543.
14. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 1, 110-122. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1745-6916. 2006. 00008. x.
15. Rosenbaum, D. A., Brach, M., & Semenov, A. (2011). Behavioral ecology meets motor behaviour: Choosing between walking and reaching paths. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43, 131-136. doi: 10. 1080/00222895. 2010. 548423.
16. Rosenbaum, D. A., & Gaydos, M. J. (2008). A method for obtaining psychophysical estimates of movement costs. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40, 11-17. doi: 10. 3200/JMBR. 40. 1. 11-17.
17. van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1970). Tool-using in primates and other vertebrates. In D. Lehrman, R. Hinde, & E. Shaw (Eds.), Advances in the Study of Behavior (pp. 195-249). New York: Academic Press.
18. Witt, J. K. (2011a). Action's effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201-206. doi: 10. 1177/0963721411408770.
19. Witt, J. K. (2011b). Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serves as indirect measures of perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1148-1156. doi: 10. 1037/a0021933.
20. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1479-1492. doi: 10. 1037/a0010781.
21. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880-888. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 31. 5. 880.