Effects of Tool Novelty and Action Demands on Gaze Searching During Tool Observation

Abstract

Technical reasoning refers to making inferences about how to use tools. The degree of technical reasoning is indicated by the bias of the gaze (fixation) on the functional part of the tool when in use. Few studies have examined whether technical reasoning differs between familiar and unfamiliar novel tools. In addition, what effect the intention to use the tool has on technical reasoning has not been determined. This study examined gaze shifts in relation to familiar or unfamiliar tools, under three conditions (free viewing, lift, and use), among 14 healthy adults (mean age ± standard deviation, 29.4 ± 3.9 years). The cumulative fixation time on the functional part of the tool served as a quantitative indicator of the degree of technical reasoning. The two-way analysis of variance for tools (familiar and unfamiliar) and conditions (free viewing, lift, and use) revealed that the cumulative fixation time significantly increased under free viewing and use conditions, compared to lift conditions. Relative to the free viewing condition, cumulative fixation time for unfamiliar tools significantly decreased in the lift condition and significantly increased in the use condition. Importantly, the results showed that technical reasoning was performed in both the use and the free viewing conditions. However, technical reasoning in the free viewing condition was not as strong as in the use condition. The difference between technical reasoning in free viewing and use conditions may indicate the difference between automatic and intentional technical reasoning.

The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects

“…According to the ndings we report here, the visual exploration of unfamiliar graspable objects seems to be characterised by an explorative gaze behaviour rstly aimed at identifying the object's function and identity by looking at its functional area (Natraj et al, 2015;Van Der Linden et al, 2015;Tamaki et al, 2020). After such a preliminary semantic-driven visual exploration of the stimulus, we found that participants oriented their visual-spatial attention toward the object's manipulation areas, as if they were to prepare themselves for action (Riddoch et al, 2003;Handy et al, 2003).…”

“…The visual exploration of unfamiliar but graspable objects appears to re ect the interactions between affordance-based (e.g., Humphreys et al, 2013;Masson et al, 2011) and higher-level cognitive processing (e.g., Wurm & Caramazza, 2019;Bar et al, 2006). Additionally, as we mentioned above, the exploration of objects' functional areas might also be associated with technicalknowledge processing through which observers may reason about how objects can be used with other objects mechanically (e.g., looking at the head of a hammer, thus focusing on the action-performing area that will hit a nail; Tamaki et al, 2020;Goldenberg & Spatt, 2009). In this sense, our results align with multiple studies that have shown how participants may concentrate on the action's goal component more than on its manipulation component (e.g., Massen & Prinz, 2007;Osiurak & Badets, 2014).…”

“…Consequently, an increasing number of studies have investigated how observers may visually encode objects under a variety of experimental contexts (e.g., Ambrosini & Costantini, 2017;Myachykov, Ellis, Cangelosi & Fischer, 2013;Natraj, Pella, Borghi & Wheaton, 2015;Van Der Linden, Mathôt & Vitu, 2015;Tamaki et al, 2020). When looking at and using objects, we need to integrate different kinds of information (i.e., semantic, technical/mechanical, and sensorimotor knowledge) in a recursive way (Osiurak, Federico, Brandimonte, Reynaud & Lesourd, 2020).…”

“…Increasing evidence indicates how, during the initial exploration of familiar graspable objects, observers' gaze is systematically biased toward objects' functional areas (e.g., the head of a screwdriver, e.g., Natraj et al, 2015;Van Der Linden et al, 2015;Tamaki et al, 2020). Such an area includes, on the one hand, the object's part in contact with other objects when generating mechanical actions (e.g., the head of the hammer striking the nail; Tamaki et al, 2020;Goldenberg & Spatt, 2009). On the other hand, the object's functional area might be related to the object's identity, permitting observers to recognise the object by accessing semantic knowledge .…”

“…On the other hand, the object's functional area might be related to the object's identity, permitting observers to recognise the object by accessing semantic knowledge . Therefore, the concentration of visualspatial attention toward the object's functional area may signal the interplay of neurocognitive systems involved in both technical reasoning (i.e., reasoning on the physical relations between objects) and semantic processing (Tamaki et al, 2020;. Instead, the object's manipulation area can be associated with the object's graspability, hence concerning the sensorimotor interface between the observer's hand and the object (Osiurak et al, 2017).…”