Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41472357›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

The flexible, the stereotyped and the in-between: putting together the combinatory tool use origins hypothesis.

Jennifer A D Colbourne, Alice M I Auersperg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jennifer A D ColbourneMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Alice M I AuerspergMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund PAT2728324Austrian Science Fund Y1309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tool use research has long made the distinction between tool using that is considered learned and flexible, and that which appears to be instinctive and stereotyped. However, animals with an inherited tool use specialisation can exhibit flexibility, while tool use that is spontaneously innovated can be limited in its expression and facilitated by predispositions for ecological specialisations. Furthermore, recent evidence does not support the proposed division of flexible tool use along primate-bird taxonomic lines. Instead, we hypothesise that tool use is a more complementary phenomenon than previously believed, in that the intrinsic motivation for combinatory object manipulation underlies the onset of all allocentric tool use, resulting in a spectrum. What influences the initial tool use that does emerge is the form of a species' object combinations, which is itself influenced by ecological niche. Therefore, an opportunistic extractive forager will likely develop more diverse forms of tool use than a specialist.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionTool Use BehaviorAnimalsextractive foragingobject combinationsobject manipulationobject playphysical cognitiontoolingtool use

Identifiers

PMID41472357
PMCPMC13149787

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.