ArticleCognitive processing2017
Creating semantics in tool use.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tool-number interaction during a prospective memory task.Cognitive processing · 2020Article
- On the Temporal Dynamics of Tool Use.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the first evidence for a functional link between tool use and the processing of abstract symbols like Arabic numbers. Participants were required to perform a tool-use task after the processing of an Arabic number. These numbers represented either a small (2 or 3) or a large magnitude (8 or 9). The tool-use task consisted in using inverse pliers for gripping either a small or a large object. The inverse pliers enable to dissociate the hand action from the tool action in relation to the object (i.e., closing the hand led to an opening of the tool and vice versa). The number/tool hypothesis predicts that the quantity representation associated with Arabic numbers will interact with the action of the tool toward the object. Conversely, the number/hand hypothesis predicts that the quantity associated with numbers will interact with the action of the hand toward the tool. Results confirmed the first hypothesis and rejected the second. Indeed, large numbers interacted with the action of the tool, such that participants were longer to perform an "opening-hand/closing-tool" action after the processing of large numbers. Moreover, no effect was detected for small numbers, confirming previous studies which used only finger movements. Altogether, our finding suggests that the well-known finger/number interaction can be reversed with tool use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.