ReviewExperimental brain research2017
The ideomotor recycling theory for tool use, language, and foresight.
Review in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limb apraxia and active inference in the visuomotor pathways.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- The spatial coding of responses can depend on the spatial features of action goals.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Why motor imagery is not really motoric: towards a re-conceptualization in terms of effect-based action control.Psychological research · 2024Review
- Effects of short-term hand immobilization on anticipatory mechanism for tool use.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Food Security and Nutrition as the Neglected Missing Links in Cultural Evolution: The Role of the Sociotype.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2022Review
- The anterior midcingulate cortex might be a neuronal substrate for the ideomotor mechanism.Experimental brain research · 2021Review
- Social learning of action-effect associations: Modulation of action control following observation of virtual action's effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Tool-number interaction during a prospective memory task.Cognitive processing · 2020Article
- A Role for the Action Observation Network in Apraxia After Stroke.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
- Creating semantics in tool use.Cognitive processing · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present theoretical framework highlights a common action-perception mechanism for tool use, spoken language, and foresight capacity. On the one hand, it has been suggested that human language and the capacity to envision the future (i.e. foresight) have, from an evolutionary viewpoint, developed mutually along with the pressure of tool use. This co-evolution has afforded humans an evident survival advantage in the animal kingdom because language can help to refine the representation of future scenarios, which in turn can help to encourage or discourage engagement in appropriate and efficient behaviours. On the other hand, recent assumptions regarding the evolution of the brain have capitalized on the concept of "neuronal recycling". In the domain of cognitive neuroscience, neuronal recycling means that during evolution, some neuronal areas and cognitive functions have been recycled to manage new environmental and social constraints. In the present article, we propose that the co-evolution of tool use, language, and foresight represents a suitable example of such functional recycling throughout a well-defined common action-perception mechanism, i.e. the ideomotor mechanism. This ideomotor account is discussed in light of different future ontogenetic and phylogenetic perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27815576What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.