ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2022
A biomechanical investigation of the efficiency hypothesis of hafted tool technology.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2022. 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.
- Towards robust identification of Pleistocene adhesives: a critical review of current analytical approaches.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Article
- Hafted technologies likely reduced stone tool-related selective pressures acting on the hominin hand.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
The transition from hand-held to hafted tool technology marked a significant shift in conceptualizing the construction and function of tools. Among other benefits, hafting is thought to have given users a significant biomechanical and physiological advantage in undertaking basic subsistence tasks compared with hand-held tools. It is assumed that addition of a handle improved the (bio)mechanical properties of a tool and upper limb by offering greater amounts of leverage, force and precision. This controlled laboratory study compares upper limb kinematics, electromyography and physiological performance during two subsistence tasks (chopping, scraping) using hafted and hand-held tools. Results show that hafted tool use elicits greater ranges of motion, greater muscle activity and greater net energy expenditure (EE) compared with hand-held equivalents. Importantly, however, these strategies resulted in reduced relative EE compared with the hand-held condition in both tasks. More specifically, the hafted axe prompted use of two well-known biomechanical strategies that help produce larger velocities at the distal end of the limb without requiring heavy muscular effort, thus improving the tool's functional efficiency and relative energy use. The energetic and biomechanical benefits of hafting arguably contributed to both the invention and spread of this technology.
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.