What neuropsychology tells us about human tool use? The four constraints theory (4CT): Mechanics, space, time, and effort

Neuropsychology Review

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 88-115

  Osiurak, François ^a  

^a Lyon University   (France)

Author keywords

Action disorganization syndrome; Apraxia; Motor simulation; Technical reasoning; Tool use

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; APRAXIA; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MENTAL FUNCTION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REVIEW; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TOOL USE;

ANIMALS; APRAXIAS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MENTAL PROCESSES; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TOOL USE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84904247771     PISSN: 10407308     EISSN: 15736660     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-014-9260-y     Document Type: Review

References (196)

1. Agre, P. E. (1988). The dynamic structure of everyday life (Tech. Rep. No. 1085). Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
2. Andersen, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1225-1232. (Pubitemid 34734604)
3. Anderson, J. R., Bothwell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory ofmind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
4. Baber, C. (2003). Cognition and tool use. London: Talyor & Francis.
5. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829-839. (Pubitemid 37314405)
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
8. Bartolo, A., Daumüller, M., Della Sala, S., & Goldenberg, G. (2007). Relationship between object-related gestures and the fractionated object knowledge system. Behavioural Neurology, 18, 143-147. (Pubitemid 47295615)
9. Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool use behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland STPM Press.
10. Beck, S. R., Apperly, I. A., Chappel, J., Guthrie, C., & Cutting, N. (2011). Making tools isn't child's play. Cognition, 119, 301-306.
11. Bernstein, N. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon.
12. Besnard, J., Allain, P., Osiurak, F., Aubin, G., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., & Le Gall, D. (2009). Contrôle exécutif et comportement d'utilisation d'objets. Vers une dissociation. Revue de Neuropsychologie, 1, 120-132.
13. Besnard, J., Allain, P., Aubin, G., Osiurak, F., Chauviré, V., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., et al. (2010). Utilization Behaviour: Clinical and theoretical approaches. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 1-10.
14. Besnard, J., Allain, P., Aubin, G., Chauviré, V., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., & Le Gall, D. (2011). A contribution to the study of environmental dependency phenomena: The social hypothesis. Neuropsychologia, 49, 3278-3294.
15. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076-1096.
16. Binkofski, F., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Two action systems in the human brain. Brain and Language, 127, 222-229.
17. Binkofski, F., Kunesch, E., Classen, J., Seitz, R. J., & Freund, H.-J. (2001). Tactile apraxia. Unimodal disorder of tactile object exploration associated with parietal lesions. Brain, 124, 132-144.
18. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D.M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 237-242. (Pubitemid 34597230)
19. Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1981). Sex differences in the use of natural hammers by wild chimpanzees: A preliminary report. Journal of Human Evolution, 10, 585-593.
20. Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1984). Possible causes of sex difference in the use of natural hammers by wild chimpanzees. Journal of Human Evolution, 13, 415-440. (Pubitemid 14005089)
21. Boesch-Achermann, H., & Boesch, C. (1993). Tool use in wild chimpanzees: New light from dark forests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 18-21.
22. Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2009). Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances. Brain Research, 1253, 117-128.
23. Botvinick, M. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111, 395-429. (Pubitemid 38516423)
24. Botvinick, M. M., & Rosen, Z. (2009). Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making. Psychological Research, 73, 835-842.
25. Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2002). When objects lose their meaning: What happens to their use? Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neurosciences, 2, 236-251. (Pubitemid 38392469)
26. Brazzelli, M., Colombo, N., Della Sala, S., & Spinnler, H. (1994). Spared and impaired cognitive abilities after bilateral frontal damage. Cortex, 30, 27-51. (Pubitemid 24093745)
27. Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341-358.
28. Buxbaum, L. J. (2001). Ideomotor Apraxia: A call to action. Neurocase, 7, 445-448.
29. Buxbaum, L. J., & Kalénine, S. (2010). Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 201-218.
30. Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M. F., & Carew, T. G. (1997). The role of memory in object use. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 219-254.
31. Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M. F., & Montgomery, M. W. (1998). Ideational apraxia and naturalistic action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 617-643.
32. Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K. M., & Menon, R. (2005). On beyond mirror neurons: Internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 226-239. (Pubitemid 41278500)
33. Cardinalli, L., Frassinetti, F., Brozzoli, C., Urquizar, C., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2009). Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology, 19, 478-479.
34. Chappell, J., & Kacelnik, A. (2002). Tool selectivity in a non-primate species, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Animal Cognition, 5, 71-78.
35. Chatterjee, A. (2010). Disemboying cognition. Language and Cognition, 2, 79-116.
36. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853-861.
37. Clark, M. A., Merians, A. S., Kothari, A., Poizner, H., Macauley, B., Rothi, L. J. G., et al. (1994). Spatial planning deficits in limb apraxia. Brain, 117, 1093-1106. (Pubitemid 24350542)
38. Cooper, R. P. (2002). Order and disorder in everyday action: The roles of contention scheduling and supervisory attentional system. Neurocase, 8, 61-79.
39. Cooper, R. P., & Shallice, T. (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 297-338. (Pubitemid 30321682)
40. Cooper, R. P., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 887-916. (Pubitemid 44637069)
41. Cooper, R. P., Schwartz, M. F., Yule, P. G., & Shallice, T. (2005). The simulation of action disorganisation in complex activities of daily living. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 959-1004. (Pubitemid 43123560)
42. Cubelli, R., Marchetti, C., Boscolo, G., & Della Sala, S. (2000). Cognition in action: Testing a model of limb apraxia. Brain and Cognition, 44, 144-165.
43. Daprati, E., & Sirigu, A. (2006). How we interact with objects: Learning from brain lesions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 265-270. (Pubitemid 43850398)
44. De Renzi, E. (1989). Apraxia. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 245-263). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
45. De Renzi, E., & Lucchelli, F. (1988). Ideational apraxia. Brain, 111, 1173-1185.
46. De Renzi, E., Cavalleri, F., & Facchini, S. (1996). Imitation and utilisation behaviour. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 61, 396-400. (Pubitemid 26355782)
47. Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., & Prablanc, C. (1989). The timing of mentally represented actions. Behavioural Brain Research, 34, 35-42. (Pubitemid 19195282)
48. Duncan, J. (1986). Disorganisation of behaviour after frontal lobe damage. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 271-290.
49. Farnè, A., & Làdavas, E. (2000). Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuro Report, 11, 1645-1649. (Pubitemid 30350326)
50. Forde, E. M. E., & Humphreys, G. W. (2000). The role of semantic knowledge and working memory in everyday tasks. Brain and Cognition, 44, 214-252.
51. Frey, S. H. (2008). Tool use, communicative gesture and cerebral asymmetries in the modern human brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 363, 1951-1957. (Pubitemid 351620685)
52. Garcea, F. E., & Mahon, B. Z. (2012). What is a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1303-1313.
53. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.
54. Gibson, K. R. (1993). Generative interplay between technical capacities, social relations, imitation and cognition. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 251-269). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Giovannetti, T., Britnell, P., Brennan, L., Siderowl, A., Grossman, M., Libon, D. J., et al. (2012). Everyday action impairment in Parkinson's disease dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 787-798.
56. Goldenberg, G. (1995). Imitating gestures and manipulating a mannikin: The representation of the human body in ideomotor apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 33, 63-72.
57. Goldenberg, G. (1999). Matching and imitation of hand and finger postures in patients with damage in left or right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 37, 559-566. (Pubitemid 29193050)
58. Goldenberg, G. (2013a). Apraxia: The cognitive side of motor control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Goldenberg, G. (2013b). Apraxia in left-handers. Brain, 136, 2592-2601.
60. Goldenberg, G., & Hagmann, S. (1998). Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 36, 581-589. (Pubitemid 28380079)
61. Goldenberg, G., & Spatt, J. (2009). The neural basis of tool use. Brain, 132, 1645-1655.
62. Goldenberg, G., Hartmann, K., & Schlott, I. (2003). Defective pantomime of object use in left brain damage: Apraxia or asymbolia? Neuropsychologia, 41, 1565-1573. (Pubitemid 36900350)
63. Goldenberg, G., Hentze, S., & Hermsdörfer, J. (2004). The effect of tactile feedback on pantomime of tool use in apraxia. Neurology, 63, 1863-1867. (Pubitemid 39532382)
64. 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. (Pubitemid 46758790)
65. Gredlein, J. M., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Sex differences in young children's use of tools in a problem-solving task. Human Nature, 16, 211-232. (Pubitemid 41308922)
66. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
67. Gruber, T., Clay, Z., & Zuberbühler, K. (2010). A comparison of bonobo and chimpanzee tool use: Evidence for a female bias in the Pan lineage. Animal Behaviour, 80, 1023-1033.
68. 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, 625-627.
69. Heilman, K. M., Rothi, L. J., & Valenstein, E. (1982). Two forms of ideomotor apraxia. Neurology, 32, 342-346. (Pubitemid 12144272)
70. Heilman, K. M., Rothi, L. J. G., Mack, L., Feinberg, T., & Watson, R. T. (1986). Apraxia after superior parietal lesions. Cortex, 32, 141-150.
71. Hermsdörfer, J., Hentze, S., & Goldenberg, G. (2006). Spatial and kinematic features of apraxic movement depend on the mode of execution. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1642-1652. (Pubitemid 43928018)
72. Hodges, J. R., Spatt, J., & Patterson, K. (1999). "What" and "how": Evidence for the dissociation of object knowledge and mechanical problem-solving skills in the human brain. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 9444-9448. (Pubitemid 29374774)
73. Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of knowledge in object use: Evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123, 1913-1925. (Pubitemid 30664294)
74. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
75. Humphreys, G.W., & Forde, E. M. E. (1998). Disordered action schema and action disorganisation syndrome. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 771-811. (Pubitemid 128527391)
76. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuro Report, 7, 2325-2330. (Pubitemid 26377790)
77. Jacobs, D. H., Adair, J. C., Williamson, D. J. G., Na, D. L., Gold, M., Foundas, A. L., et al. (1999). Apraxia and motor-skill acquisition in Alzheimer disease are dissociable. Neuropsychologia, 37, 875-880. (Pubitemid 29245985)
78. James, W. (2007). The principles of psychology. New York: Cosimo Classics (Original work published 1890)
79. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2012). On the persistence of toolbased compatibility effects. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 16-22.
80. Jarry, C., Osiurak, F., Delafuys, D., Chauviré, V., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., & Le Gall, D. (2013). Apraxia of tool use: More évidence for the technical reasoning hypothesis. Cortex, 49, 2322-2333.
81. Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115, 350-355.
82. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: a unifyingmechanism for motor cognition. Neuro Image, 14, 103-109.
83. Johnson, S. L. (1981). Effect of training device on retention and transfer of a procedural task. Human Factors, 23, 257-272.
84. Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2007). What puts the how in where? Tool use and the divided visual streams hypothesis. Cortex, 43, 368-375.
85. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, J. T. Mayes, & A. Ferreira (Eds.), Cognitive Tools for Learning (NATO ASI Series, pp. 1-6).
86. Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (2002). Touch. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental Psychology (pp. 147-176). New York: Wiley.
87. Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decisionmaking and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 665-682.
88. Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49, 661-670. (Pubitemid 47122694)
89. Latash, M. L., Scholz, J. P., & Schöner, G. (2007). Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Motor Control, 11, 267-308.
90. Lauro-Grotto, R., Piccini, C., & Shallice, T. (1997). Modality-specific operations in semantic dementia. Cortex, 33, 593-622. (Pubitemid 28014859)
91. Leakey, R. (1980). The making of Mankind. London: Book Club Associates.
92. Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342-368.
93. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1971). L'Homme et la matière. Paris: Albin Michel.
94. Lesourd, M., Le Gall, D., Baumard, J., Croisile, B., Jarry, C., & Osiurak, F. (2013). Apraxia and Alzheimer's disease: Review and perspectives. Neuropsychology Review, 23, 234-256.
95. Lhermitte, F. (1983). Utilisation behaviour and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. Brain, 106, 237-255. (Pubitemid 13098510)
96. Lhermitte, F., Pillon, B., & Serdaru, M. (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes. Part I: Imitation and utilization behavior: A neuropsychological study of 75 patients. Annals of Neurology, 19, 326-334. (Pubitemid 16109864)
97. Limongelli, L., Boysen, S. T., & Visalberghi, E. (1995). Comprehension of cause-effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109, 18-26.
98. Lonsdorf, E. V. (2005). Sex differences in the development of termitefishing skills in the wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, of Gombe National Park, Tanzania. Animal Behaviour, 70, 673-683. (Pubitemid 43293147)
99. 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.
100. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, 102, 59-70.
101. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 27-51.
102. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 79-86. (Pubitemid 38169479)
103. Martin-Ordas, G., Call, J., & Colmenares, F. (2008). Tubes, tables and traps: Great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks. Animal Cognition, 11, 423-430.
104. Massen, C. (2013). Cognitive representations of tool-use interactions. New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 239-246.
105. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 692-704.
106. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2009). Movements, actions and tool-use actions: An ideomotor approach to imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2349-2358.
107. McGrew, W. C. (1992). Chimpanzee material culture: Implications for human evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
108. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
109. Morady, K., & Humphreys, G. (2011). Multiple tasks demands in action disorganization syndrome. Neurocase, 17, 461-472.
110. Morgado, N., Gentaz, E., Guinet, E., Osiurak, F., & Palluel-Germain, R. (2013). Within reach but no so reachable. Obstacles matter in visual perception of reaching distances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 462-467.
111. Mounoud, P. (1996). A recursive transformation of central cognitive mechanisms: The shift from partial to whole representation. In A. J. Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven year shift: the age of reason and responsibility (pp. 85-110). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
112. Negri, G. A., Lunardelli, A., Reverberi, C., Gigli, G. L., & Rumiati, R. I. (2007a). Degraded semantic knowledge and accurate object use. Cortex, 43, 376-388. (Pubitemid 46744680)
113. Negri, G. A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Zadini, A., Ukmar, M., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2007b). What is the role of motor stimulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 795-816.
114. Nonaka, T. (2013). Motor variability but functional specificity: The case of a C4 tetraplegic mouth calligrapher. Ecological Psychology, 25, 131-154.
115. Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1-14.
116. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum Press.
117. Osiurak, F. (2013). Apraxia of tool use is not a matter of affordances. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 890.
118. Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2014). Pliers, not fingers. Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition, 130, 66-73.
119. Osiurak, F., Aubin, G., Allain, P., Jarry, C., Richard, I., & Le Gall, D. (2008a). Object usage and object utilization. A single-case study. Neurocase, 14, 169-183.
120. Osiurak, F., Aubin, G., Allain, P., Jarry, C., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Richard, I., et al. (2008b). Different constraints on grip selection in braindamaged patients. Object use versus object transport. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2431-2434.
121. Osiurak, F., Jarry, C., Allain, P., Aubin, G., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Richard, I., et al. (2009). Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model. Cortex, 45, 769-783.
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. Osiurak, F., Jarry, C., Baltenneck, N., Boudin, B., & Le Gall, D. (2012a). Make a gesture and I will tell you what you are miming. Pantomime recognition in healthy subjects. Cortex, 48, 584-592.
125. Osiurak, F., Morgado, N., & Palluel-Germain, R. (2012b). Tool use and perceived distance. When unreachable becomes sponatenously reachable. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 331-339.
126. Osiurak, F., Jarry, C., Lesourd, M., Baumard, J., & Le Gall, D. (2013a). Mechanical problem-solving in left brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1964-1972.
127. Osiurak, F., Roche, K., Ramone, J., & Chainay, H. (2013b). Handing a tool to someone can take more time than using it. Cognition, 128, 76-81.
128. Osiurak, F., Wagner, C., Djerbi, S., & Navarro, J. (2013c). Why dowe use automatic tools? The priority of control over effort. Experimental Psychology, 60, 453-468.
129. Osiurak, F., Morgado, N., Vallet, G., Drot, M., & Palluel-Germain, R. (2014). Getting a tool gives wings: Underestimation of effort for tool use. Psychological Research, 78, 1-9.
130. Pascual-Leone, A., Grafman, J., Clark, K., Stewart, M., Massaquoi, S., Lou, J.-S., et al. (1993). Procedural learning in Parkinson's disease and cerebellar degeneration. Annuals of Neurology, 34, 594-602. (Pubitemid 23289412)
131. Penfield, W., & Evans, J. (1935). The frontal lobe inman: A clinical study of maximum removals. Brain, 58, 115-133.
132. 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, 109-130.
133. Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2011). The mechanics of embodiment: A dialog on embodiment and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 5.
134. Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2013). Computational grounded cognition: A new alliance between grounded cognition and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 612.
135. Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540-558. (Pubitemid 34578474)
136. Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk physics for apes. New York: Oxford University Press.
137. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154. (Pubitemid 127440315)
138. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 1, 110-122.
139. Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in distance perception. Psychological Science, 14, 409-428.
140. Reason, J. T. (1979). Actions not as planned: The price of automatization. In G. Underwood & R. Stevens (Eds.), Aspects of consciousness (pp. 67-89). London: London Academic Press.
141. Rieger, M. (2004). Automatic keypress activation in skilled typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 555-565. (Pubitemid 38726724)
142. Rieger, M., & Massen, C. (2014). Tool characteristics in imagery of tool actions. Psychological Research, 78, 10-17.
143. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). Themirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
144. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2008). Reaching while walking: Reaching distance costs more than walking distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & review, 15, 1100-1104.
145. Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J., & Jorgensen, M. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321-342). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
146. Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Barnes, H. J., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1992). Time course of movement planning: Selection of handgrips for object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1058-1073.
147. Rosenbaum, D. A., Meulenbroek, R. J., Vaughan, J., & Jansen, C. (2001). Posture-based motion planning: Applications to grasping. Psychological Review, 108, 709-734. (Pubitemid 33604143)
148. Rothi, L. J. G., Ochipa, C., & Heilman, K. M. (1991). A cognitive neuropsychological model of limb praxis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 443-458.
149. Roy, E. A., & Square, P. A. (1985). Common considerations in the study of limb, verbal and oral apraxia. In E. A. Roy (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of apraxia and related disorders (pp. 111-161). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
150. Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 7-57). Cambridge: MIT Press.
151. Santos, L. R., Pearson, H. M., Spaepen, G. M., Tsao, F., & Hauser, M. (2006). Probing the limits of tool competence: Experiments with two non-tool-using species (Cercopithecus aethiops and Saguinus oedipus). Animal Cognition, 9, 94-109.
152. Schwartz, M. F. (1995). Re-examining the role of executive functions in routine action production. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 769, 321-335. (Pubitemid 26075901)
153. Schwartz, M. F., Reed, E. S., Montgomery, M.W., Palmer, C., & Mayer, N. H. (1991). The quantitative description of action disorganisation after brain damage: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 381-414.
154. Schwartz, M. F., Montgomery, M.W., Buxbaum, L. J., Lee, S. S., Carew, T. G., Coslett, H. B., et al. (1998). Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychology, 12, 13-28. (Pubitemid 28070394)
155. Schwartz, M. F., Segal, M., Veramonti, T., Ferraro, M., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). The naturalistic action test: A standardized assessment for everyday action impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 311-339. (Pubitemid 35006179)
156. Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727-741.
157. Shallice, T., Burgess, P. W., Schon, F., & Baxter, D. M. (1989). The origins of utilisation behaviour. Brain, 112, 1587-1598.
158. Shaw, R. (2003). The agent-environment interface: Simon's indirect or Gibson's direct coupling. Ecological Psychology, 15, 37-106. (Pubitemid 36977582)
159. Shaw, R., Turvey, M. T., & Mace, W. (1982). Ecological psychology: The consequence of a commitment to realism. In W. Weimer & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic process (pp. 159-226). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
160. Silveri, M. C., & Ciccarelli, N. (2009). Semantic memory in object use. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2634-2641.
161. Singh, D. (1970). Preference for bar pressing to obtain reward over freeloading in rats and children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 73, 320-327.
162. Sirigu, A., Duhamel, J.-R., & Poncet, M. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition. Brain, 114, 2555-2573.
163. Solomon, R. L. (1948). The influence ofwork on behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 1-40.
164. Solway, A., & Botvinick, M. M. (2012). Goal-directed decision making as probabilistic inference: A computational framework and potential neural correlates. Psychological Review, 119, 120-154.
165. Spatt, J., Bak, T., Bozeat, S., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2002). Apraxia, mechanical problem solving and semantic knowledge: Contributions to object usage in corticobasal degeneration. Journal of Neurology, 249, 601-608. (Pubitemid 34507835)
166. Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2005). Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Visual Cognition, 12, 1337-1361. (Pubitemid 41600662)
167. Tarte, R.D. (1981). Contrafreeloading in humans. Psychological Reports, 49, 859-866.
168. Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror system: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Bio Behavioral Reviews, 37, 491-521.
169. Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 493-498. (Pubitemid 44825074)
170. Tolman, E. C. (1949). The nature and functioning of wants. Psychological Review, 56, 357-369.
171. Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 509-529.
172. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830-846. (Pubitemid 128457480)
173. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381-403). New York: New York Academic Press.
174. Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 25, 1-12.
175. Turvey, M. T. (1996). Dynamic Touch. American Psychologist, 51, 1134-1152. (Pubitemid 126420202)
176. Vaesen, K. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 203-218.
177. Valyear, K. F., Chapman, C. S., Gallivan, J. P., Mark, R. S., & Culham, J. C. (2011). To use or to move: Goal-set modulates priming when grasping real tools. Experimental Brain Research, 212, 125-142.
178. van der Steen, M. C., & Bongers, R. M. (2011). Joint angle variability and co-variation in a reaching with a rod task. Experimental Brain Research, 208, 411-422.
179. van Schaik, C. P., Deaner, R. O., & Merrill, M. Y. (1999). The conditions for tool use in primates: Implications for the evolution of material culture. Journal of Human Evolution, 36, 19-41.
180. Vingerhoets, G., Vandamme, K., & Vercammen, A. (2009). Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition, 69, 481-489.
181. Vingerhoets, G., Acke, F., Alderweireldt, A. S., Nys, J., Vandemaele, P., & Achten, E. (2012). Cerebral lateralization of praxis in right- and left-handedness: Same pattern, different strength. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 763-777.
182. Vingerhoets, G., Alderweireldt, A. S., Vandemaele, P., Cai, Q., van der Haegen, L., Brysbaert, M., et al. (2013). Praxis and language are linked: Evidence from co-lateralization in individuals with atypical language dominance. Cortex, 49, 172-183.
183. Visalberghi, E., & Limongelli, L. (1994). Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 15-22.
184. Visalberghi, E., & Trinca, L. (1989). Tool use in capuchin monkeys: Distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates, 30, 511-521.
185. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
186. Wagman, J. B., & Abney, D. H. (2012). Transfer of recalibration from audition to touch: Modality independence as a special case of anatomical independence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 589-602.
187. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2001). Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology, 13, 173-195. (Pubitemid 33673272)
188. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2003). Haptically creating affordances: The user-tool interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 175-186. (Pubitemid 37353285)
189. Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 635-657.
190. Waters, R. H. (1937). The principle of least effort in learning. Journal of General Psychology, 16, 3-20.
191. Witt, J. K. (2011a). Action's effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201-206.
192. Witt, J. K. (2011b). Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serves as indirectmeasures of perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1148-1156.
193. 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.
194. 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. (Pubitemid 41653557)
195. Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269, 1880-1882.
196. Zadikoff, C., & Lang, A. E. (2005). Apraxia in movement disorders. Brain, 128, 1480-1497. (Pubitemid 41373669)