Are tools truly incorporated as an extension of the body representation?: Assessing the evidence for tool embodiment.

The predominant view on human tool-use suggests that an action-oriented body representation, the body schema, is altered to fit the tool being wielded, a phenomenon termed tool embodiment. While observations of perceptual change after tool-use purport to support this hypothesis, several issues undermine their validity in this context, discussed at length in this critical review. The primary measures used as indicators of tool embodiment each face unique challenges to their construct validity. Further, the perceptual changes taken as indicating extension of the body representation only appear to account for a fraction of the tool's size in any given experiment, and do not demonstrate the covariance with tool length that the embodiment hypothesis would predict. The expression of tool embodiment also appears limited to a narrow range of tool-use tasks, as deviations from a simple reaching paradigm can mollify or eliminate embodiment effects altogether. The shortcomings identified here generate important avenues for future research. Until the source of the kinematic and perceptual effects that have substantiated tool embodiment is disambiguated, the hypothesis that the body representation changes to fit tools during tool-use should not be favored over other possibilities such as the formation of separable internal tool models, which seem to offer a more complete account of human tool-use behaviors. Indeed, studies of motor learning have observed analogous perceptual changes as aftereffects to adaptation despite the absence of handheld tool-use, offering a compelling alternative explanation, though more work is needed to confirm this possibility.