Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain, 17. London, The British Museum, 9. By D. Williams. London: British Museum P, 1993. Pp. 80 + illus. £65.

Oakley, John H.

doi:10.2307/631716

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In broad terms, stone knapping requires the progressive acquisition of key functional parameters (i.e., mechanical knowledge; see Osiurak & Badets, 2016). This study nicely illustrates that secondary tool use is based on technical reasoning in that the knapper needs to reason about each of the mechanical actions involved (i.e., secondary tool-tool and tool-target object; see Oakley, 1949; Wolpert, 2003). However, the role of technical reasoning is not to temporarily maintain the different actions generated, but to generate them (see Osiurak, 2014; Osiurak & Badets, 2016; Osiurak et al, 2010).…”

Section: Secondary Tool Usementioning

confidence: 82%

Cognitive Paleoanthropology and Technology: Toward a Parsimonious Theory (PATH)

Osiurak

2017

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tool use in humans and hominins (i.e., extant relatives to humans) is unique in several respects. To date, no attempt has been made to review the main patterns of tool behavior specific to these species as well as to integrate them into a coherent framework. The aim here is to fill this gap by (a) identifying these behavioral specificities and (b) trying to explain the greatest number of these specificities with the lowest number of cognitive mechanisms. Based on this approach, this article provides a potential solution, namely, the PArsimonious THeory of hominin technology (PATH), aiming to account for the cognitive origins of 4 behavioral characteristics: transfer, complex tool use, secondary tool use, and tool saving. A key hypothesis is that the emergence of 2 breaking mechanisms—technical reasoning and semantic reasoning—could have boosted hominin technology. PATH offers an original framework for understanding the most archaic, human cognitive traits, thereby providing a good starting point for future investigation about the cognitive evolution of technology in the genus Homo.

show abstract

Section: Secondary Tool Usementioning

confidence: 82%

Cognitive Paleoanthropology and Technology: Toward a Parsimonious Theory (PATH)

Osiurak

2017

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A noteworthy aspect of this definition is that it applies to both human and nonhuman actions. Anthropologists once considered tool use to be a highly characteristic feature of genus Homo (Oakley, 1949). Reports of tool use in nonhumans, however, led them to revise their view (e.g., see van Lawick-Goodall, 1970).…”

Section: Epistemological Issues About Tool Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability to make one tool so as to create another has been suggested to necessitate a high degree of cognitive sophistication, so it might distinguish humans from nonhuman animals (K. R. Gibson, 1993; Johnson-Frey, 2007; Napier, 1980; Oakley, 1949; Wolpert, 2003). This view has been recently challenged by evidence from tool-making activities by animals.…”

Section: Summary and New Directions From The Dialectical Theory Of Hu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use.

Osiurak¹,

Jarry²,

Gall³

2010

Psychological Review

187

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most exciting issues in psychology is, What are the psychological mechanisms underlying human tool use? The computational approach assumes that the use of a tool (e.g., a hammer) requires the extraction of sensory information about object properties (heavy, rigid), which can then be translated into appropriate motor outputs (grasping, hammering). The ecological approach suggests that humans perceive not the properties of tools per se but what they afford (a heavy, rigid object affords pounding). This is the theory of affordances. In this article, we examine the potential of the computational view and the ecological view to account for human tool use. To anticipate our conclusions, neither of these approaches is likely to be satisfactory, notably because of their incapacity to resolve the issue of why humans spontaneously use tools. In response, we offer an original theoretical framework based on the idea that affordance perception and technical reasoning work together in a dialectical way. The thesis we defend here is that humans have the ability to view body action as a problem to be solved. It is precisely at this point that technical reasoning occurs. However, even if the ability to do technical reasoning gives humans the illusion of constantly doing less (e.g., TV remote control), they are still forced to use body action-and to perceive affordances-to operate the product of the reasoning (pushing buttons with the fingers). This is the principle of dialectic.

show abstract

Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain, 17. London, The British Museum, 9. By D. Williams. London: British Museum P, 1993. Pp. 80 + illus. £65.

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Cognitive Paleoanthropology and Technology: Toward a Parsimonious Theory (PATH)

Cognitive Paleoanthropology and Technology: Toward a Parsimonious Theory (PATH)

Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About