Tool Use

Once considered only a human behavior, reports of tool use by a variety of animals have accumulated. Likewise,
various definitions of tool use have also amassed. Although some researchers argue that understanding the evolutionary
drivers of tool use is more important than identifying and describing these behaviors, the central issue of defining what
constitutes tool use has not been fully addressed. Here we analyze prominent definitions of tool use and review the
application of these definitions in scientific and educational literature. We demonstrate that many behaviors recently
described as tool use do not meet criteria for prevalent definitions, while other neglected behaviors may constitute a
form of tool use. These examples show how the use of inconsistent definitions of tool use in research can result in
different conclusions from the same observations. Our aim is to demonstrate that a universally acceptable definition of
tool use based on traditional, evolutionary, and operational understanding of behavior is needed. The rationale is that
this review will stimulate the consistent and explicit use of specific terminology in tool use research. This would help
define specific examples of each natural observation from a common measuring stick, allowing better comparative
studies and classification of these unique behaviors.

The capacity to use tools is a fundamental evolutionary achievement. Its essence stands in the capacity to transfer a proximal goal (grasp a tool) to a distal goal (e.g., grasp food). Where and how does this goal transfer occur? Here, we show that, in monkeys trained to use tools, cortical motor neurons, active during hand grasping, also become active during grasping with pliers, as if the pliers were now the hand fingers. This motor embodiment occurs both for normal pliers and for ''reverse pliers,'' an implement that requires finger opening, instead of their closing, to grasp an object. We conclude that the capacity to use tools is based on an inherently goal-centered functional organization of primate cortical motor areas.

Scanning electron and optical light microscopes are compared for usewear analysis.Micrographs of the same point of interest were recorded on both systems.Advantages and disadvantages for usewear analysis are discussed.SEM and OLM imply different methodological procedures, approaches and skills.SEM and OLM are complementary techniques.Usewear analysis is now well established as a powerful means by which to identify the function of stone tools excavated from archaeological sites. However, one of the main issues for usewear analysts is still to provide quantified analyses and interpretations. Several attempts have yielded promising results but have not, as of yet, been widely applied and usewear analyses are still mainly performed using either Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or Optical Light Microscopy (OLM). The systematic comparison of micrographs from both types of microscope presented here enables us to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Furthermore, it sho...

The present article advances the notion of musical topography to describe the engagement between a practitioner and the musical instrument, emphasizing its developmental character. From the point of view of semiotic anthropology, it is suggested that the development of such a practical engagement is guided by expressivity, and that the instrument appears not only as an extension of the body, but participates in the generation of a unitary field, where bodily motion, the instrument and the tonal space are intertwined. The development of lived musical practice draws its force from a situated tradition that consists of normative, structural and stylistic elements, and of a constellation of genres and values shaped and reshaped by generations of practitioners. Finally, it is emphasized that the notion of musical topography brings back to musical praxis its long neglected imaginative dimension.

We propose two principles that should be followed in the study of automaticity for cognitive processes. Both follow from the general rule that experimental research should be guided by a model of the task in question, frequently a process model. The first is that the concept of ...

Tool-use is specialized in humans, and juvenile humans show much more prolific and prodigious tool-use than other juvenile primates. Nonhuman primates possess many of the basic motor and behavioral capacities needed for manual tool-use: perceptual-motor specialization, sociocultural practices and interactions, and abstract conceptualization of kinds of functions, both real and imagined. These traits jointly contribute to the human specialization for tool-using. In particular, from 2 to 5 years of age children develop: (i) more refined motor routines for interacting with a variety of objects, (ii) a deeper under- standing and awareness of the cultural context of object-use practices, and (iii) a cognitive facility to represent potential dynamic human–object interactions. The last trait, which has received little attention in recent years, is defined as the ability to form abstract (i.e., generalizable to novel contexts) representations of kinds of functions, even with relatively little training or instruction. This trait might depend not only on extensive tool-using expe- rience but also on developing cognitive abilities, including a variety of cognitive flexibility: specifically, imagistic memory for event sequences incorporating causal inferences about mechanical effects. Final speculations point to a possible network of neural systems that might contribute to the cognitive capacity that includes sensorimotor, sensory integration, and prefrontal cortical resources and interconnections.

Tool use has been observed in a variety of primate species, including both New and Old World monkeys. However, such reports mainly address the most prodigious tool users and frequently limit discussions of tool-using behavior to a foraging framework. Here, we present observations of novel and spontaneous tool use in wild black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), where female spider monkeys used detached sticks in a self-directed manner. We introduce factors to explain Ateles tool-using abilities and limitations, and encourage the synthesis of relevant research in order to gain insight into the cognitive abilities of spider monkeys and the evolution of tool-using behaviors in primates.

Usewear analysis is now well established as a powerful means by which to identify the function of stone tools excavated from archaeological sites. However, one of the main issues for usewear analysts is still to provide quantified analyses and interpretations. Several attempts have yielded promising results but have not, as of yet, been widely applied and usewear analyses are still mainly performed using either Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or Optical Light Microscopy (OLM). The systematic comparison of micrographs from both types of microscope presented here enables us to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Furthermore, it shows beginners or experts using only one type of microscope that these techniques are complementary and should be considered as such. It also represents a significant basis for developing the implementation of quantitative methods for usewear analysis with SEM and OLM.

Sex differences in immatures predict behavioural differences in adulthood in many mammal species. Because most studies have focused on sex differences in social interactions, little is known about possible sex differences in 'preparation' for adult life with regards to tool use skills. We investigated sex and age differences in object manipulation in immature apes. Chimpanzees use a variety of tools across numerous contexts, whereas bonobos use few tools and none in foraging. In both species, a female bias in adult tool use has been reported. We studied object manipulation in immature chimpanzees at Kalinzu (Uganda) and bonobos at Wamba (Democratic Republic of Congo). We tested predictions of the 'preparation for tool use' hypothesis. We confirmed that chimpanzees showed higher rates PLOS ONE |

Cite this article: Kopps AM, Ackermann CY, Sherwin WB, Allen SJ, Bejder L, Krützen M. 2014 Cultural transmission of tool use combined with habitat specializations leads to fine-scale genetic structure in bottlenose dolphins. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20133245. http://dx.

Chimpanzees are renowned for their use of foraging tools in harvesting social insects and some populations use tools to prey on aggressive army ants (Dorylus spp.). Tool use in army ant predation varies across chimpanzee study sites with differences in tool length, harvesting technique, and army ant species targeted. However, surprisingly little is known about the detailed ecology of army ant predation. We studied army ant predation by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at the Seringbara study site in the Nimba Mountains, Guinea (West Africa), over 10 years (2003-2013). We investigated chimpanzee selectivity with regards to army ant prey species. We assessed the temporal variation in army ant-feeding and examined whether army ant predation was related to rainfall or ripe fruit availability. Moreover, we examined whether chimpanzees showed selectivity regarding plant species used for tool manufacture, as well as the relationship between tool species preference and tool collection distance. Lastly, we measured tool properties and investigated the use of tool sets and composite tools in army ant predation. Seringbara chimpanzees preyed on one army ant species (D. nigricans) more often than expected based on encounter rates, which may be explained by the overlap in altitudinal distribution between chimpanzees and D. nigricans. Army ant predation was not related to rainfall or fruit availability. Chimpanzees were selective in their choice of tool materials and collected their preferred tool species (Alchornea hirtella) from greater distances than they did other species. Lastly, Seringbara chimpanzees used both tool sets and composite tools (tree perch) in army ant predation. Tool types (dig vs. dip) differed in width and strength, but not length. Tool composites were found at 40% of ant-feeding sites. Our study sheds new light on the ecology of army ant predation and provides novel insights into chimpanzee selection of army ant prey and tool species.

Capuchins (Cebus libidinosus) occupy areas of Caatinga in northeast Brazil. They consume the nuts of several species of difficult-to-open fruits (two species of Palmae and one species of Euphorbiacea) and are reported to use stones as hammers to crack open the nuts. This article describes the weight of hammers found on anvils and presumably used for nut-cracking by individuals in two groups of wild unprovisioned capuchin monkeys. Hammer weights ranged from less than 200 to over 3 kg. Based on a correlation between the type of broken nuts found at a site and the stones present on anvils, there was evidence that hammer weight differed according to nut size. These findings are consistent with experimental data recently published by Visalberghi et al. [Current Biology 19, 2009, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.064] and indicate that capuchins are capable of choosing stones of appropriate weight to effectively use pounding tools in natural environments without interference from humans.

Dedicated multisensory mechanisms in the brain represent peripersonal space (PPS), a limited portion of space immediately surrounding the body. Previous studies have illustrated the malleability of PPS representation through hand-object interaction, showing that tool use extends the limits of the hand-centered PPS. In the present study we investigated the effects of a special tool, the wheelchair, in extending the action possibilities of the whole body. We used a behavioral measure to quantify the extension of the PPS around the body before and after Active (Experiment 1) and Passive (Experiment 2) training with a wheelchair and when participants were blindfolded (Experiment 3). Results suggest that a wheelchair-mediated passive exploration of far space extended PPS representation. This effect was specifically related to the possibility of receiving information from the environment through vision, since no extension effect was found when participants were blindfolded. Surprisingly, the active motor training did not induce any modification in PPS representation, probably because the wheelchair maneuver was demanding for non-expert users and thus they may have prioritized processing of information from close to the wheelchair rather than at far spatial locations. Our results suggest that plasticity in PPS representation after tool use seems not to strictly depend on active use of the tool itself, but is triggered by simultaneous processing of information from the body and the space where the body acts in the environment, which is more extended in the case of wheelchair use. These results contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying body-environment interaction for developing and improving applications of assistive technological devices in different clinical populations.

Different primate species have developed extensive capacities for grasping and manipulating objects. However, the manual abilities of primates remain poorly known from a dynamic point of view. The aim of the present study was to quantify the functional and behavioral strategies used by captive bonobos (Pan paniscus) during tool use tasks. The study was conducted on eight captive bonobos which we observed during two tool use tasks: food extraction from a large piece of wood and food recovery from a maze. We focused on grasping postures, in-hand movements, the sequences of grasp postures used that have not been studied in bonobos, and the kind of tools selected. Bonobos used a great variety of grasping postures during both tool use tasks. They were capable of in-hand movement, demonstrated complex sequences of contacts, and showed more dynamic manipulation during the maze task than during the extraction task. They arrived on the location of the task with the tool already modified and used different kinds of tools according to the task. We also observed individual manual strategies. Bonobos were thus able to develop in-hand movements similar to humans and chimpanzees, demonstrated dynamic manipulation, and they responded to task constraints by selecting and modifying tools appropriately, usually before they started the tasks. These results show the necessity to quantify object manipulation in different species to better understand their real manual specificities, which is essential to reconstruct the evolution of primate manual abilities.

Usewear analysis is now well established as a powerful means by which to identify the function of stone tools excavated from archaeological sites. However, one of the main issues for usewear analysts is still to provide quantified analyses and interpretations. Several attempts have yielded promising results but have not, as of yet, been widely applied and usewear analyses are still mainly performed using either Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or Optical Light Microscopy (OLM). The systematic comparison of micrographs from both types of microscope presented here enables us to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Furthermore, it shows beginners or experts using only one type of microscope that these techniques are complementary and should be considered as such. It also represents a significant basis for developing the implementation of quantitative methods for usewear analysis with SEM and OLM.

Tool use in nonhuman apes can help identify the conditions that drove the extraordinary expansion of hominin technology. Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest living relatives. Whereas chimpanzees are renowned for their tool use, bonobos use few tools and none in foraging. We investigated whether extrinsic (ecological and social opportunities) or intrinsic (predispositions) differences explain this contrast by comparing chimpanzees at Kalinzu (Uganda) and bonobos at Wamba (DRC). We assessed ecological opportunities based on availability of resources requiring tool use. We examined potential opportunities for social learning in immature apes. Lastly, we investigated predispositions by measuring object manipulation and object play. Extrinsic opportunities did not explain the tool use difference, whereas intrinsic predispositions did. Chimpanzees manipulated and played more with objects than bonobos, despite similar levels of solitary and social play. Selection for increased intrinsic motivation to manipulate objects likely also played an important role in the evolution of hominin tool use. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are humans' closest living relatives and the two sister species shared a common evolutionary history until about one million years ago 1. Yet, despite their evolutionary closeness, chimpanzees and bonobos differ in a number of important ways. One of the most striking differences is the discrepancy in the reliance on tool use in wild populations of Pan. The use of tools by our primate relatives can help us to identify the conditions that drove the extraordinary expansion of hominin technology. Chimpanzees are renowned for their extensive use of tools in a wide variety of contexts, including feeding, self-maintenance and social contexts 2. All chimpanzee populations studied in the wild use tools, although the prevalence of tool use varies significantly across groups 3. The geographic variation in tool use across chimpanzee populations is most parsimoniously explained in terms of culture 3,4. Chimpanzee cultural variants include nut cracking, termite fishing and ant dipping. Bonobos, on the other hand, use surprisingly few tools in the wild and no tool use in feeding has been observed 5-7. The use of tools by wild bonobos mainly concerns social contexts, comfort and protection from the rain. In contrast, most chimpanzee tool use occurs in a foraging context, especially in extracting difficult to obtain foods 8. Previously, the absence of bonobo feeding-tool use has been proposed to result from year-round high food availability 5,9 , limiting the necessity for tool use. However, a recent comparison between chimpanzee and bonobo habitat characteristics and fluctuation of fruit production failed to support this hypothesis 8. In chimpanzees, extrinsic factors, in terms of ecological opportunities for tool use, play an important role in explaining within species differences in tool use 10,11. Chimpanzees and bonobos are allopatric and thus inhabit different environments, which raises the possibility that ecological differences may also play an important role in explaining between species tool use differences. Moreover, similar levels of tool use in captive chimpanzees and bonobos 12 , kept under similar conditions, suggest that the species difference in tool use may be due to differences in extrinsic (ecological or social) opportunities for tool use in the

Culturally transmitted tool use has important ecological and evolutionary consequences and has been proposed as a significant driver of human evolution. Such evidence is still scarce in other animals. In cetaceans, tool use has been inferred using indirect evidence in one population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.), where particular dolphins ('spongers') use marine sponges during foraging. To date, evidence of whether this foraging tactic actually provides access to novel food items is lacking. We used fatty acid (FA) signature analysis to identify dietary differences between spongers and non-spongers, analysing data from 11 spongers and 27 non-spongers from two different study sites. Both univariate and multivariate analyses revealed significant differences in FA profiles between spongers and non-spongers between and within study sites. Moreover, FA profiles differed significantly between spongers and non-spongers foraging within the same deep channel habitat, whereas the profiles of non-spongers from deep channel and shallow habitats at this site could not be distinguished. Our results indicate that sponge use by bottlenose dolphins is linked to significant differences in diet. It appears that cultural transmission of tool use in dolphins, as in humans, allows the exploitation of an otherwise unused niche.

How do we responsibly determine whether an animal’s behavior counts as genuine tool use--i.e. whether these animals understand the causal properties of these objects and the uses to which they can be put? In this paper, I will suggest a key problem with prior definitions of tool use: they have been plagued by a severe form of sample bias, focusing only on a few species and excluding others. One necessary condition for “genuine” tool use has been the “manufacture” clause, which holds that the animal needs to intentionally appropriate the contents of the environment as an object-used-as-tool in order for its behavior to qualify as genuine tool use. I propose to discard this traditional requirement by refocusing our attention on the habitat covering over 70 percent of the Earth’s surface--by looking at the surprising ways that aquatic animals can manipulate water to flexibly accomplish their goals.

Sex differences in immatures predict behavioural differences in adulthood in many mammal species. Because most studies have focused on sex differences in social interactions, little is known about possible sex differences in 'preparation' for adult life with regards to tool use skills. We investigated sex and age differences in object manipulation in immature apes. Chimpanzees use a variety of tools across numerous contexts, whereas bonobos use few tools and none in foraging. In both species, a female bias in adult tool use has been reported. We studied object manipulation in immature chimpanzees at Kalinzu (Uganda) and bonobos at Wamba (Democratic Republic of Congo). We tested predictions of the 'preparation for tool use' hypothesis. We confirmed that chimpanzees showed higher rates PLOS ONE |

This paper compares and contrasts two forms of distributed cognition - one looking at how an individual interacts with one or more artefacts, the other looking at how groups of people interact with or without artefacts. Whilst the two approaches have many similarities, they ...

Tool-use is one of the most complex object manipulation abilities of humans and robots. In this paper, we present strategies for implementing tool-use with anthropomorphic service robots. Based on the observation that human tools are specifically designed for the human body, we augment tools with handles that adapt the tool to the specifics of our robot. We develop methods for perceiving the tools and their end-effectors in RGB-D images. We also describe our control approaches used in our tool-use examples. We demonstrate tool-use by our service robot publicly at RoboCup@Home competitions, and report on the lessons learned through implementing such complex manipulation skills for our robot.

In a paper that recently appeared in this journal, we proposed a model that aims at providing a comprehensive account of our ability to intelligently use tools, bridging sensorimotor and reasoning-based explanations of this ability. Central to our model is the notion of generalized motor programs for tool use, which we defined as a synthesis between classic motor programs, as described in the scientific literature, and Peircean habits. In his commentary, Osiurak proposes a critique of the notion of generalized motor program, and suggests that the limitations of our model can be solved by integrating it with the view that motor programs are generated by a previous mechanical reasoning, independent from sensorimotor knowledge. Here we reply that while on the one hand our reference to Peircean habits gets over the temptation to consider motor programs as fixed internal entities, it also rejects the view, endorsed by Osiurak, that intelligent practice is a mixture of antecedent abstract reasoning and subsequent motor execution.

Tool-use behavior is currently one of the most intriguing and widely debated topics in cognitive neuroscience. Different accounts of our ability to use tools have been proposed. In the first part of the paper we review the most prominent interpretations and suggest that none of these accounts, considered in itself, is sufficient to explain tool use. In the second part of the paper we disentangle three different types of reasoning on tools, characterized by a different distribution of motor and cognitive ingredients. At the conceptual level, these types of reasoning reflect the distinction between three types of abductive inference as they are described in semiotic studies. At the functional level, we suggest that these types of reasoning on tools may correspond to different mental processes, possibly implemented in different regions of the left inferior parietal lobe. This proposal can account for the different interpretations commonly associated with the role of the left parietal cortex in tool use.

In Shark Bay, Western Australia, bottlenose dolphins Tursiops sp. carry conical sponges Echinodictyum mesenterinum on their rostra in the only documented cetacean foraging behaviour using a tool ('sponging'). In this study, we examined the influence of various ecological factors on live sponge distribution and the occurrence of sponging in parts of the western gulf of Shark Bay. We assessed sponge distribution and seagrass cover along 12 transects of approximately 11 km length, by recording sponges and seagrass in a total of 1380 quadrats (1 × 1 m), of which 56 quadrats contained conical sponges. The occurrence of sponging dolphins ('spongers') was documented along 10 of these 12 transects. The distribution of conical sponges was negatively correlated with the distribution of seagrass: no conical sponges were observed in water depths of <10 m and no seagrasses were found at depths of >12 m. A digital elevation model, created from the sample depth data, identified channels in the region. Binary logistic and Poisson loglinear generalised linear models showed that water depth and bathymetric features including channel, substrate and slope were significant in predicting the occurrence and the mean number of conical sponges, as well as that of seagrass. Conical sponge distribution was positively correlated with the distribution of sponging, indicating that ecological factors influence where sponging occurs. The greater number of spongers found in this region may be explained by the larger area of habitat suitable for conical sponges in the western than the eastern gulf of Shark Bay.