Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:02:57.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can object affordances impact on human social learning of tool use?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

Pierre O. Jacquet ,
Alessia Tessari ,
Ferdinand Binkofski  and
Anna M. Borghi
Pierre O. Jacquet
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bologna University, 40127 Bologna, Italy. [email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/[email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/index.htm INSERM U1028; CNRS UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, ImpAct Team, 69500 Bron, France University Lyon1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
Alessia Tessari
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bologna University, 40127 Bologna, Italy. [email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/[email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/index.htm
Ferdinand Binkofski
Affiliation:
Section for Neurological Cognition Research, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany. [email protected]://www.rossiproject.eu/
Anna M. Borghi
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bologna University, 40127 Bologna, Italy. [email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/[email protected]://www.emco.unibo.it/index.htm Institute of Sciences and Technologies of Cognition, National Research Council, 00185 Rome, Italy. [email protected]://laral.istc.cnr.it/borghi/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author describes “higher” and “uniquely human” sociocognitive skills that he argues as being necessary for tool use. We propose that those skills could be based on simpler detection systems humans could share with other animal tool users. More specifically, we discuss the impact of object affordances on the understanding and the social learning of tool use.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2012 , pp. 227 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acerbi, A., Tennie, C. & Nunn, C. (2011) Modeling imitation and emulation in constrained search space. Learning & Behavior 39(2):104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambon, V., Domenech, P., Pacherie, E., Koechlin, E., Baraduc, P. & Farrer, C. (2011) What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding. PloS ONE 6(2):e17133. Retrieved from www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claidière, N. & Sperber, D. (2010) Imitation explains the propagation, not the stability of animal culture. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277(1681):651–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (1997) Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. (2007) “Obsessed with goals”: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica 124:6078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D. C. (1982) Beyond beliefs. In: Thought and object: Essays on intentionality, ed. Woodfield, A., pp. 1–97. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1995) Darwin's dangerous idea. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Franz, M. & Matthews, L. J. (2010) Social enhancement can create adaptive, arbitrary and maladaptive cultural traditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277(1698):3363–72.Google Scholar
Gergely, G. (2007) Learning “about” versus learning “from” other minds: Natural pedagogy and its implications. In: The innate mind: Vol. 3. Foundations and the future, ed. Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., Stich, S., pp. 170–98. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. (2003) Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naive theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(7):287–92.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. L. (1981) Mind in science: A history of explanations in psychology and physics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. A, van Heugten, C. M. & Caldwell, G. E. (1996) From cognition to biomechanics and back: The end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect. Acta Psychologica 94(1):59–85.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2003a) Cognitive load and human decision, or, three ways of rolling the rock uphill. In: The innate mind: Vol. 2. Culture and cognition, ed. Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., Stich, S., pp. 218–33. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2003b) Thought in a hostile world: The evolution of human cognition. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Tennie, C., Hedwig, D., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2008) An experimental study of nettle feeding in captive gorillas. American Journal of Primatology 70(6):584–93.Google Scholar
Weiss, D. J., Wark, J. D. & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007) Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do: The end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Psychological Science 18(12):1063–68.Google Scholar