Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34165917›Full record

ArticleTopics in cognitive science2021

Extending the Reach of Tooling Theory: A Neurocognitive and Phylogenetic Perspective.

Jennifer A D Colbourne, Alice M I Auersperg, Megan L Lambert, Ludwig Huber, Christoph J Völter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Topics in cognitive science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Moving.American journal of primatology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Functional fixedness in chimpanzees.Scientific reports · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennifer A D ColbourneComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.
Alice M I AuerspergComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.
Megan L LambertComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.
Ludwig HuberComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.
Christoph J VölterComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF M 2563Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tool use research has suffered from a lack of consistent theoretical frameworks. There is a plethora of tool use definitions and the most widespread ones are so inclusive that the behaviors that fall under them arguably do not have much in common. The situation is aggravated by the prevalence of anecdotes, which have played an undue role in the literature. In order to provide a more rigorous foundation for research and to advance our understanding of the interrelation between tool use and cognition, we suggest the adoption of Fragaszy and Mangalam's (2018) tooling framework, which is characterized by the creation of a body-plus-object system that manages a mechanical interface between tool and surface. Tooling is limited to a narrower suite of behaviors than tool use, which might facilitate its neurocognitive investigation. Indeed, evidence in the literature indicates that tooling has distinct neurocognitive underpinnings not shared by other activities typically classified as tool use, at least in primates. In order to understand the extent of tooling incidences in previous research, we systematically surveyed the comprehensive tool use catalog by Shumaker et al. (2011). We identified 201 tool use submodes, of which only 81 could be classified as tooling, and the majority of the tool use examples across species were poorly supported by evidence. Furthermore, tooling appears to be phylogenetically less widespread than tool use, with the greatest variability found in the primate order. However, in order to confirm these findings and to understand the evolution and neurocognitive mechanisms of tooling, more systematic research will be required in the future, particularly with currently underrepresented taxa.

Indexed as

CognitionHumansPhylogenyAnimal behaviorAnimal tool useComparative cognitionEvolution of technologyObject manipulationReplication crisisSpatial relationsTooling

Identifiers

PMID34165917
PMCPMC7616289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.