Comparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna.
Top Cogn Sci. 2021 Oct;13(4):548-572. doi: 10.1111/tops.12554. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
Tool use research has suffered from a lack of consistent theoretical frameworks. There is a plethora of tool use definitions and the most widespread ones are so inclusive that the behaviors that fall under them arguably do not have much in common. The situation is aggravated by the prevalence of anecdotes, which have played an undue role in the literature. In order to provide a more rigorous foundation for research and to advance our understanding of the interrelation between tool use and cognition, we suggest the adoption of Fragaszy and Mangalam's (2018) tooling framework, which is characterized by the creation of a body-plus-object system that manages a mechanical interface between tool and surface. Tooling is limited to a narrower suite of behaviors than tool use, which might facilitate its neurocognitive investigation. Indeed, evidence in the literature indicates that tooling has distinct neurocognitive underpinnings not shared by other activities typically classified as tool use, at least in primates. In order to understand the extent of tooling incidences in previous research, we systematically surveyed the comprehensive tool use catalog by Shumaker et al. (2011). We identified 201 tool use submodes, of which only 81 could be classified as tooling, and the majority of the tool use examples across species were poorly supported by evidence. Furthermore, tooling appears to be phylogenetically less widespread than tool use, with the greatest variability found in the primate order. However, in order to confirm these findings and to understand the evolution and neurocognitive mechanisms of tooling, more systematic research will be required in the future, particularly with currently underrepresented taxa.
工具使用研究一直受到缺乏一致理论框架的困扰。有大量的工具使用定义,其中最广泛的定义是如此包罗万象,以至于它们所涵盖的行为实际上并没有太多共同之处。这种情况因轶事的流行而加剧,轶事在文献中发挥了不应有的作用。为了为研究提供更严格的基础,并深入了解工具使用和认知之间的相互关系,我们建议采用 Fragaszy 和 Mangalam(2018 年)的工具化框架,该框架的特点是创建一个身体加物体系统,管理工具和表面之间的机械接口。工具化的行为比工具使用的行为更为有限,这可能有助于对其进行神经认知研究。事实上,文献中的证据表明,工具化具有独特的神经认知基础,与其他通常被归类为工具使用的活动不同,至少在灵长类动物中是这样。为了了解以前研究中工具化发生的程度,我们系统地调查了 Shumaker 等人(2011 年)的全面工具使用目录。我们确定了 201 种工具使用子模式,其中只有 81 种可以归类为工具化,而跨物种的大多数工具使用示例都没有得到证据的充分支持。此外,工具化在进化上似乎不如工具使用广泛,在灵长类目中发现了最大的变异性。然而,为了证实这些发现,并了解工具化的进化和神经认知机制,未来需要进行更系统的研究,特别是针对目前代表性不足的分类群。