Abstract
Tools, which have a cognitive background rooted in our phylogenetic history, are essential for humans to interact with their environment. One of the characteristics of human beings is the coordination between the eyes and hands, which is associated with a skilled visuospatial system. Vision is the first input of an action that influences interaction with tools, and tools have affordances, known as behavioural possibilities, which indicate their possible uses and potentialities. The aim of the present study is to investigate body–tool interaction from a cognitive perspective, focusing on visual affordances during interaction with the early stone tools. We analyse visual attention, applying eye tracking technology, during a free visual exploration and during haptic manipulation of the Lower Palaeolithic stone tools. The central area of the tool is the most observed region, followed by the top and the base, while knapped areas trigger more attention than the cortex. There are differences between stone tool types, but visual exploration does not differ when aided by haptic exploration. The results suggest that visual behaviour is associated with the perception of affordances, possibly from the beginning of the brain–body–tool interaction, associated with the Lower Palaeolithic culture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aagten-Murphy D, Bays PM (2018) Functions of memory across saccadic eye movementshttps://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2018_66
Ambrose SH (2001) Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 80(291):1748–1753
Ambrosini E, Costantini M (2016) Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 43:360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000330
Atkinson J (2008) The developing visual brain. Oxford University Press
Baena Preysler J, Torres Navas C, Sharon G (2018) Life history of a large flake biface. Quat Sci Rev 190:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.04.015
Biro D, Haslam M, Rutz C (2013) Tool use as adaptation. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20120408. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0408
Bock RD, Kolakowski D (1973) Further evidence of sex-linked major-gene influence on human spatial visualizing ability. Am J Hum Genet 25(1):1–14
Boëda E (2013) Techno-logique & Technologie. Une Paléo-histoire des Objets Lithiques Tranchants. @rchéo-éditions.com, Paris.
Borghi AM (2007) Object concepts and embodiment: why sensorimotor and cognitive processes cannot be separated. J Exp Psychol Gen 135:1–11
Borghi AM, Flumini A, Natraj N, Wheaton LA (2012) One hand, two objects: emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.007
Brouwer AM, Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2009) Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. J Vis 9https://doi.org/10.1167/9.1.18
Bruner E (2021) Evolving human brains: paleoneurology and the fate of Middle Pleistocene. J Archaeol Method Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09500-8
Bruner E, Iriki A (2016) Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus. Quat Int 405:98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.019
Bruner E, Lozano M (2014) Extended mind and visuo-spatial integration: three hands for the Neanderthal lineage. J Anthropol Sci 92:273–280
Bruner E, Spinapolice E, Burke A, Overmann KA (2018a) Visuospatial integration: paleoanthropological and archaeological perspectives. Springer, Cham, pp 299–326 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93776-2_19
Bruner E, Fedato A, Silva-Gago M et al (2018b) Cognitive archeology, body cognition, and hand–tool interaction. Prog Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.06.013
Burke A (2012) Spatial abilities, cognition and the pattern of Neanderthal and modern human dispersals. Quat Int 247:230–235
Carrasco M (2011) Visual attention: the past 25 years. Vision Res 51:1484–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012
Clark A, Chalmers D (1998) The extended mind. Source: Analysis.
Clements-Stephens AM, Rimrodt SL, Cutting LE (2009) Developmental sex differences in basic visuospatial processing: differences in strategy use? Neurosci Lett 449:155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.10.094
Cléry J, Guipponi O, Wardak C, Ben Hamed S (2015) Neuronal bases of peripersonal and extrapersonal spaces, their plasticity and their dynamics: knowns and unknowns. Neuropsychologia 70:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.022
Craighero L, Fadiga L, Umiltà CA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Evidence for visuomotor priming effect. NeuroReport 8:347–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199612200-00068
Criado-Boado F, Alonso-Pablos D, Blanco MJ, et al (2019) Coevolution of visual behaviour, the material world and social complexity, depicted by the eye-tracking of archaeological objects in humans. Sci Rep 9https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39661-w
Day B, Ebrahimi E, Hartman LS et al (2017) Calibration to tool use during visually-guided reaching. Acta Psychol (amst) 181:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.09.014
de Wit MM, de Vries S, van der Kamp J, Withagen R (2017) Affordances and neuroscience: steps towards a successful marriage. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.008
Duchowski AT, (2017) Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice: third edition, Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice: third edition. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57883-5
Eloka O, Franz VH (2011) Effects of object shape on the visual guidance of action. Vision Res 51:925–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.02.002
Estalrrich A, Rosas A (2015) Division of labor by sex and age in Neanderthals: an approach through the study of activity-related dental wear. J Hum Evol 80:51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.07.007
Fedato A, Silva-Gago M, Terradillos-Bernal M et al (2020) Hand grasping and finger flexion during Lower Paleolithic stone tool ergonomic exploration. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 12:254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01189-w
Federico G, Brandimonte MA (2019) Tool and object affordances: an ecological eye-tracking study. Brain Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.103582
Federico G, Brandimonte MA (2020) Looking to recognise: the pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use. Sci Rep 10:6157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63045-0
Findlay JM, Gilchrist ID (2003) Active vision: the psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524793.001.0001
García-Medrano P, Ollé A, Mosquera M et al (2014) The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII Unit). Quat Int 353:170–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.053
Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press, The ecological approach to visual perception. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218
Gonzalez DA, Niechwiej-Szwedo E (2016) The effects of monocular viewing on hand-eye coordination during sequential grasping and placing movements. Vision Res 128:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.08.006
Gowlett JAJ (2006) The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language. In: Goren-Inbar N, Sharon G (eds) Axe Age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard. Equinox, London, pp 203–221
Grefkes C, Fink GR (2005) The functional organization of the intraparietal sulcus in humans and monkeys. J Anat 207(1):3–17
Hammer DAT, Ryan PD, Hammer Ø, Harper DAT (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis
Harris LR, Carnevale MJ, D’Amour S et al (2015) How our body influences our perception of the world. Front Psychol 6:1–10
Herzlinger G, Wynn T, Goren-Inbar N (2017) Expert cognition in the production sequence of Acheulian cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: A lithic and cognitive analysis. PLoS ONE 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188337
Hodgson TL, Ezard G, Hermens F (2019) Eye movements in neuropsychological tasks, in: Current topics in behavioral neurosciences. Springer, pp. 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2019_98
Hodgson TL, Müller HJ, O’Leary MJ (1999) Attentional localization prior to simple and directed manual responses. Percept Psychophys 61:308–321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206890
Ioannidou F, Hermens F, Hodgson TL (2016) The central bias in day-to-day viewing. J Eye Mov Res 9:5–6. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.9.6.6
Jacob RJK, Karn KS (2003) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research. Ready to deliver the promises., in: The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Elsevier Inc., pp. 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50031-1
Jacquet PO, Chambon V, Borghi AM, Tessari A (2012) Object affordances tune observers’ prior expectations about tool-use behaviors. PLoS ONE 7:e39629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039629
Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002
Juravle G, Colino FL, Meleqi X, Binsted G, Farnè A (2018) Vision facilitates tactile perception when grasping an object. Sci Rep 8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33916-8
Juravle G, Velasco C, Salgado-Montejo A, Spence C (2015) The hand grasps the center, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Front Psychol 6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00633
Kalénine S, Wamain Y, Decroix J, Coello Y (2016) Conflict between object structural and functional affordances in peripersonal space. Cognition 155:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.006
Kassuba T, Klinge C, Hölig C et al (2013) Vision holds a greater share in visuo-haptic object recognition than touch. Neuroimage 65:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.054
Key A, Dunmore CJ, Hatala KG, Williams-Hatala EM (2017) Flake morphology as a record of manual pressure during stone tool production. J Archaeol Sci Reports 12:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.023
Key AJM, Dunmore CJ, Marzke MW (2019) The unexpected importance of the fifth digit during stone tool production. Sci Rep 9:16724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53332-w
Key AJM, Dunmore CJ (2015) The evolution of the hominin thumb and the influence exerted by the non-dominant hand during stone tool production. J Hum Evol 78:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.08.006
Key AJM, Proffitt T, Stefani E, Lycett SJ (2016) Looking at handaxes from another angle: assessing the ergonomic and functional importance of edge form in Acheulean bifaces. J Anthropol Archaeol 44:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.08.002
Kowler E (2011) Eye movements: the past 25 years. Vision Res 51:1457–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014
Land MF (2006) Eye movements and the control of actions in everyday life. Prog. Retin. Eye Res.
Land MF, Hayhoe M (2001) In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities? In: Vision Research. pp 3559–3565
Lombard M, Högberg A (2021) Human cognition in the middle stone age/middle Palaeolithic: a four-field co-evolutionary model. J Archaeol Method Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09502-6
Makris S, Hadar AA, Yarrow K (2011) Viewing objects and planning actions: on the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects. Brain Cogn 77:257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002
Malafouris L (2013) How things shape the mind : a theory of material engagement. The MIT Press
Malafouris L (2010) The brain–artefact interface (BAI): a challenge for archaeology and cultural neuroscience. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 5:264–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp057
Maravita A, Iriki A (2004) Tools for the body (schema). Trends Cogn Sci 8:79–86
Marzke MW (2013) Tool making, hand morphology and fossil hominins. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20120414. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0414
McGivern RF, Mosso M, Freudenberg A, Handa RJ (2019) Sex related biases for attending to object color versus object position are reflected in reaction time and accuracy. PLoS ONE 14:e0210272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210272
Merritt P, Hirshman E, Wharton W, Stangl B, Devlin J, Lenz A (2007) Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Pers Individ Dif 43:597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.016
Meteyard L, Cuadrado SR, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G (2012) Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48:788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
Muthukrishna M, Doebeli M, Chudek M, Henrich J (2018) The cultural brain hypothesis: how culture drives brain expansion, sociality, and life history. PLoS Comp Bi 14(11):e1006504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006504
Myachykov A, Ellis R, Cangelosi A, Fischer MH (2013) Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Exp Brain Res 229:545–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z
Natraj N, Alterman B, Basunia S, Wheaton LA (2018) The role of attention and saccades on parietofrontal encoding of contextual and grasp-specific affordances of tools: an ERP study. Neuroscience 394:243–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROSCIENCE.2018.10.019
Natraj N, Pella YM, Borghi AM, Wheaton LA (2015) The visual encoding of tool-object affordances. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.060
Neubauer S, Gunz Hublin J, P, (2018) The evolution of modern human brain shape. Sci Adv 4(1):eaao5961
Osiurak F, Rossetti Y, Badets A (2017) What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 77:403–417
Park GD, Reed CL (2015) Haptic over visual information in the distribution of visual attention after tool-use in near and far space. Exp Brain Res 233:2977–2988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4368-8
Park GD, Strom M, Reed CL (2013) To the end! Distribution of attention along a tool in peri- and extrapersonal space. Exp Brain Res 227:423–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3439-y
Pereira-Pedro AS, Bruner E, Gunz P, Neubauer S (2020) A morphometric comparison of the parietal lobe in modern humans and Neanderthals. J Hum Evol 142:102770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102770
Peretto C, Amore FO, Antoniazzi A, et al (1998) L’industrie lithique de Ca’Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo : Stratigraphie, matière première, typologie, remontages et traces d’utilisation
Piber D, Nowacki J, Mueller SC, Wingenfeld K, Otte C (2018) Sex effects on spatial learning but not on spatial memory retrieval in healthy young adults. Behav Brain Res 336:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.08.034
Quallo MM, Price CJ, Ueno K et al (2009) Gray and white matter changes associated with tool-use learning in macaque monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:18379–18384. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909751106
Reed CL, Betz R, Garza JP, Roberts RJ (2010) Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Attention, Perception, Psychophys 72:236–245. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.1.236
Roberts KL, Humphreys GW (2011) Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Attention, Perception, Psychophys 73:597–612. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0043-0
Robinson DL, Kertzman C (1990) Visuospatial attention: effects of age, gender, and spatial reference. Neuropsychologia 28:291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(90)90022-G
Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, Poizner H (2003) Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Exp Brain Res 151:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1435-3
Semaw S, Rogers MJ, Quade J et al (2003) 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar. Ethiopia J Hum Evol 45:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9
Shea JJ (2020) Cores and core-tools. In: Prehistoric stone tools of Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, pp 137–164
Silva-Gago M, Fedato A, Rios-Garaizar J, Bruner E (2019) A preliminary survey on hand grip and hand-tool morphometrics in three different stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. Reports 23https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.11.012
Silva-Gago M, Ioannidou F, Fedato A, Hodgson T, Bruner E (2021a) Visual attention and cognitive archaeology: an eye-tracking study of Paleolithic stone tools. Perception (under review).
Silva-Gago M, Fedato A, Terradillos-Bernal M, Alonso-Alcalde R, Martín-Guerra E, Bruner E (2021b) Not a matter of shape: the influence of tool characteristics on electrodermal activity in response to haptic exploration of Lower Palaeolithic tools. Am J Hum Biol (under review).
Stoffregen TA (2003) Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecol Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_2
Stone KD, Gonzalez CLR (2014) Grasping with the eyes of your hands: hapsis and vision modulate hand preference. Exp Brain Res 232:385–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3746-3
Stone KD, Gonzalez CLR (2015) Manual preferences for visually- and haptically-guided grasping. Acta Psychol (Amst) 160:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.004
Stout D, Chaminade T (2012) Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099
Stout D, Toth N, Schick K, Chaminade T (2008) Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: technology, language and cognition in human evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363:1939–1949. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0001
Tatler BW (2007) The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. J. Vis. 7https://doi.org/10.1167/7.14.4
Terradillos-Bernal M, Rodríguez XP (2012) The Lower Palaeolithic on the northern plateau of the Iberian Peninsula (Sierra de Atapuerca, Ambrona and La Maya I): A technological analysis of the cutting edge and weight of artefacts. Developing an hypothetical model. J Archaeol Sci 39:1467–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.037
Tipper SP, Paul MA, Hayes AE (2006) Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13:493–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875
Toth N, Schick K (2018) An overview of the cognitive implications of the Oldowan Industrial Complex. Azania 53:3–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2018.1439558
Tseng PH, Carmi R, Cameron IGM, Munoz DP, Itti L (2009) Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. J vis 9:4–4. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4
Turvey MT, Carello C (2011) Obtaining information by dynamic (effortful) touching. Philos Trans r Soc B Biol Sci 366:3123–3132
Turvey MT, Shockley K, Carello C (1999) Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition 73:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00050-5
Vaesen K (2012) The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behav Brain Sci 35:203–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001452
Van der Linden L, Mathôt S, Vitu F (2015) The role of object affordances and center of gravity in eye movements toward isolated daily-life objects. J vis 15:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.5.8
Venditti F, Agam A, Tirillò J, Nunziante-Cesaro S, Barkai R (2021) An integrated study discloses chopping tools use from Late Acheulean Revadim (Israel). PLoS ONE 16(1):e0245595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245595
Villotte S, Churchill SE, Dutour OJ, Henry-Gambier D (2010) Subsistence activities and the sexual division of labor in the European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic: evidence from upper limb enthesopathies. J Hum Evol 59:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.02.001
Wagman JB, Carello C (2003) Haptically creating affordances: the user-tool interface. J Exp Psychol Appl 9:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.175
Wagman JB, Cialdella VT, Stoffregen TA (2019) Higher order affordances for reaching: perception and performance. Q J Exp Psychol 72:1200–1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/174702181878440
Walker J, Lee K (2016) Relationship between acheulean biface dimensions and hand size. Lithics 5–14
Williams-Hatala EM, Hatala KG, Gordon M et al (2018) The manual pressures of stone tool behaviors and their implications for the evolution of the human hand. J Hum Evol 119:14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.02.008
Williams-Hatala EM, Hatala KG, Key A et al (2020) Kinetics of stone tool production among novice and expert tool makers. Am J Phys Anthropol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24159
Wynn T (2020) Ergonomic clusters and displaced affordances in early lithic technology. Adapt Behav. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712320932333
Xiao F, Peng L, Fu L, Gao X (2018) Salient object detection based on eye tracking data. Signal Process 144:392–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2017.10.019
Young RW (2003) Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing. J Anat 202:165–174
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Flora Ioannidou for her help in the first steps with the portable eye tracking. We are extremely grateful to all the volunteers who participated in this survey and to two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
Funding
This study is supported by the Junta de Castilla y León and co-financed by the European Social Funds (EDU/574/2018) and by the Spanish Government (Atapuerca Project: PGC2018-093925-B-C31/32).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silva-Gago, M., Fedato, A., Hodgson, T. et al. Visual attention reveals affordances during Lower Palaeolithic stone tool exploration. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 13, 145 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01413-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01413-1