Variations of Tool and Task Characteristics Reveal That Tool-Use Postures Are Anticipated

Sensitivity to hierarchical relations among affordances in the assembly of asymmetric tools

“…This effect is consistent with previous research demonstrating that people are sensitive to relations between the length of a rod and the distance that can be reached with it (e.g., Bongers et al 2004;Carello et al 1999;Solomon and Turvey 1988;Wagman et al 2016). In the context of affordances nested within a means-ends hierarchy, the present results are consistent with the hypothesis that participants exploited affordances for tool assembly so as to create tools that included the affordance for reaching the distance required, based on the target location and the designated goal actions.…”

“…In Experiment 2, we asked participants to perform the same task with or without additional precision constraints. We expected that participants would exhibit sensitivity to hierarchical, means-ends relationships in assembling tools for these tasks, and would do so in a way that is consistent with previous research (Bongers et al 2004;Wagman et al 2016;Wagman and Carello 2001). Following the methodology established in studies of the perception of affordances through effortful touch Shockley et al 2004;Carello 2001, 2003), we collected data on tool assembly and used these data to make inferences about participants' sensitivity to hierarchical, means-ends relationships among affordances.…”

“…Second, both the mass and mass distribution of the assembled tools (quantified by I) needed to be appropriate to achieve the designated task with the designated level of precision. Therefore, we expected that participants would add more mass and would configure those masses so as to create an object with larger I in the tipping task than in the sliding task and under low precision constraints than under high precision constraints (Bongers et al 2004Wagman et al 2016Wagman and Carello 2001;Wagman and Taylor 2004).…”

“…Judgments were higher in the step stool and rod conditions than in the floor condition, suggesting that participants understood how a possible non-reaching action would affect their reaching ability if they were to step onto a stool, or if they were to grasp a rod. Similarly, Bongers et al (2004) asked participants to walk up to a target while holding a rod, stop at an appropriate distance from that target, lower the rod, and then use the rod to displace the target. Stopping distance from the target varied prospectively as a function of rod length and the precision constraints of the task (i.e., the size of the target to be displaced).…”

Against Smallism And Localism

“…Moreover, perceiving what behaviors are possible for the person+object system means perceiving the world in relation to this dynamical system (Bongers, Michaels, & Smitsman, 2004). This has led to the conclusion that successful control of the person+object system is tantamount to controlling a novel dynamic system (Jagacinski & Flach, 2003;Wickens, 1986).…”