ArticleScientific reports2024
Children's limited tooling ability in a novel concurrent tool use task supports the innovation gap.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The flexible, the stereotyped and the in-between: putting together the combinatory tool use origins hypothesis.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
School-aged children have consistently shown a surprising developmental lag when attempting to innovate solutions to tool use tasks, despite being capable of learning to solve these problems from a demonstrator. We suggest that this "innovation gap" arises from tool tasks with more complex spatial relations. Following Fragaszy and Mangalam's new tooling theory, we predicted that innovating a new "sticker slide" task should be more challenging when two tools need to be used at the same time (concurrently) rather than one at a time (sequentially), despite the similarity of the other task elements. In line with previous work, both versions of the task were challenging for all ages of children (4-9 years) that we tested. However, the youngest group showed particularly extreme difficulties, which was marked by not a single child innovating the concurrent version. Although success significantly increased with age, even the oldest group failed to reach 50% success on the concurrent version of the task, whereas the majority of the two older groups could solve the sequential version. Thus, in this first study of concurrent tool use in children, we found support for the prediction that increasing the complexity of spatial relations in tooling exacerbates the innovation gap.
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.