ArticleScientific reports2018
Tool Use and Generalized Motor Programs: We All Are Natural Born Poly-Dexters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are reaching and grasping effector-independent? Similarities and differences in reaching and grasping kinematics between the hand and foot.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Complex tools and motor-to-mechanical transformations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Action Observation and Effector Independency.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For most people, human tool use is inextricably entwined with manual dexterity. This folk belief is widespread among scientists too. In this line, human tool use is based on motor programs about how the hand interacts with tools, implying that the use of end-effectors other than the hand should generate motor control difficulties (e.g., inability to reproduce a specific tool-use action over time), because these so-called programs characterize the spatiotemporal parameters of hand movements, but not of other end-effectors. To test this, we asked participants to perform three tool-use actions (e.g., pounding a nail) with four end-effectors (i.e., right foot, right elbow, left hand, right hand). We show that participants not only spontaneously performed the tool-use actions effectively, but also crucially kept tools' spatiotemporal parameters constant among the end-effectors. This phenomenon, which we call poly-dexterity, is at odds with the view that the human brain stores hand-centered motor programs for tool use. Poly-dexterity is instead consistent with the idea that, once the tool-use action is formed mentally, general motor programs can be applied to a variety of end-effectors. Reversing the usual evolutionary perspective, our findings support that, in the course of evolution, manual dexterity has come after tool-use skills.
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.