ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Novel tool use does not depend on mechanical reasoning: evidence from apraxia.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A hallmark of human intelligence is the ability to use tools. Yet the cognitive processes supporting this ability remain debated. One contemporary view holds that mechanical reasoning is central for tool use, especially in the case of tools with which we have no prior experience. However, previous support for the role of mechanical reasoning often relies on circular logic, wherein poor performance on novel tool-use tasks is taken as evidence that impaired mechanical reasoning causes tool-use deficits in limb apraxia. To address this limitation, we independently assessed mechanical reasoning and novel tool use in separate tasks in individuals with limb apraxia, and compared their performance to individuals without apraxia. We also examined whether these two abilities are similarly associated with other cognitive abilities including motor imagery, mental rotation of non-body objects, general reasoning, and spatial working memory. Finally, we explored brain-behavior relationships using support vector regression lesion-symptom mapping. Our behavioral and imaging data together showed that mechanical reasoning does not underlie novel tool-use deficits in apraxia. Graphical analysis further revealed that novel tool use and mechanical reasoning loaded onto distinct latent clusters: novel tool use was strongly associated with other praxis abilities yet separable from cognitive abilities that require reasoning and mental simulation, whereas mechanical reasoning was primarily linked to other high-level reasoning abilities but not tool use. These findings challenge the notion that mechanical reasoning is central to tool-use ability, and instead suggest that tool use is more likely to be an intuitive or automatic process.
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.