The study of lithic technology can provide information on human cultural evolution. This article aims to analyse visual behaviour associated with the exploration of ancient stone artefacts and how this relates to perceptual mechanisms in humans. In Experiment 1, we used eye tracking to record patterns of eye fixations while participants viewed images of stone tools, including examples of worked pebbles and handaxes. The results showed that the focus of gaze was directed more towards the upper regions of worked pebbles and on the basal areas for handaxes. Knapped surfaces also attracted more fixation than natural cortex for both tool types. Fixation distribution was different to that predicted by models that calculate visual salience. Experiment 2 was an online study using a mouse-click attention tracking technique and included images of unworked pebbles and ‘mixed’ images combining the handaxe's outline with the pebble's unworked texture. The pattern of clicks corresponded to that revealed using eye tracking and there were differences between tools and other images. Overall, the findings suggest that visual exploration is directed towards functional aspects of tools. Studies of visual attention and exploration can supply useful information to inform understanding of human cognitive evolution and tool use.
AlmeidaJ.MahonB. Z.Zapater-RaberovV.DziubaA.CabaçoT.MarquesJ. F.CaramazzaA. (2014). Grasping with the eyes: The role of elongation in visual recognition of manipulable objects. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0208-0
2.
AmbrosiniE.CostantiniM. (2016). Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000330
AtkinsonJ. (2008). The developing visual brain. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525998.001.0001.
5.
BeyeneY.KatohS.WoldegabrielG.HartW. K.UtoK.SudoM.KondoM.HyodoM.RenneP. R.SuwaG.AsfawB. (2013). The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(5), 1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221285110
6.
BooksteinF. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BordesF. (1961). Typologie du paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Impr. Delmas.
8.
BorghiA. M. (2007). Object concepts and embodiment: Why sensorimotor and cognitive process cannot be separated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11. http://laral.istc.cnr.it/Pubblicazioni/English/Journals/borghi2007.pdf.
9.
BraunD. (2012). Whatdoes Oldowan technology represent in terms of hominin behavior? In Domínguez-RodrigoM. (Ed.), Stone tools and fossil bones: Debates in the archaeology of human origins (pp. 222–244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139149327.011
10.
BrouwerA. M.FranzV. H.GegenfurtnerK. R. (2009). Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.1.18
11.
BrunerE. (2021). Evolving human brains: Paleoneurology and the fate of middle Pleistocene. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 28, 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09500-8
12.
BrunerE.FedatoA.Silva-GagoM.Alonso-AlcaldeR.Terradillos-BernalM.Fernández-DurantesM.Martín-GuerraE. (2018). Cognitive archeology, body cognition, and hand–tool interaction. Progress in Brain Research, 238, 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.06.013
13.
BrunerE.IrikiA. (2016). Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus. Quaternary International, 405(A), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.019
14.
BrunerE.LozanoM. (2014). Extended mind and visuospatial integration: Three hands for the Neandertal lineage. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 92, 273–280. https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.92009
15.
BurkeA. (2012). Spatial abilities, cognition and the pattern of Neanderthal and modern human dispersals. Quaternary International, 247(1), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.10.029
Criado-BoadoF.Alonso-PablosD.BlancoM. J.PortoY.Rodríguez-PazA.CabrejasE.del Barrio-ÁlvarezE.MartínezL. M. (2019). Coevolution of visual behaviour, the material world and social complexity, depicted by the eye-tracking of archaeological objects in humans. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 3985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39661-w
22.
Diez-MartínF.Sánchez YustosP.UribelarreaD.BaquedanoE.MarkD. F.MabullaA.FraileC.DuqueJ.DiázI.Pérez-GonzálezA.YravedraJ.EgelandC. P.OrganistaE.Domínguez-RodrigoM. (2015). The origin of the Acheulean: The 1.7 million-year-old site of FLK West, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Scientific Reports, 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17839
23.
DoranM. M.HoffmanJ. E.SchollB. J. (2009). The role of eye fixations in concentration and amplification effects during multiple object tracking. Visual Cognition, 17(4), 574–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280802117010
24.
DuchowskiA. T. (2017). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice, 3rd ed. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57883-5.
25.
EgnerS.ReimannS.HoegerR.ZangemeisterW. H. (2018). Attention and information acquisition: Comparison of mouse-click with eye-movement attention tracking. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.16910/JEMR.11.6.4
26.
FedatoA.Silva-GagoM.Terradillos-BernalM.Alonso-AlcaldeR.BrunerE. (2020a). Hand grasping and finger flexion during lower Palaeolithic stone tool ergonomic exploration. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(11), 254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01189-w
27.
FedatoA.Silva-GagoM.Terradillos-BernalM.Alonso-AlcaldeR.Martín-GuerraE.BrunerE. (2020b). Hand morphometrics, electrodermal activity, and stone tools haptic perception. American Journal of Human Biology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23370
28.
FedericoG.BrandimonteM. A. (2019). Tool and object affordances: An ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.103582
29.
FedericoG.OsiurakF.BrandimonteM. A. (2021). Hazardous tools: The emergence of reasoning in human tool use. Psychological Research, 85(8), 3108–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01466-2
30.
FindlayJ. M.GilchristI. D. (2003). Active vision: The psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524793.001.0001.
31.
FoulshamT.UnderwoodG. (2008). What can saliency models predict about eye movements? Spatial and sequential aspects of fixations during encoding and recognition. Journal Of Vision, 8(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.2.6
32.
García-MedranoP.OlléA.AshtonN.RobertsM. B. (2019). The mental template in handaxe manufacture: New insights into Acheulean lithic technological behavior at Boxgrove, Sussex, UK. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26(1), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9376-0
33.
García-MedranoP.OlléA.MosqueraM.CáceresI.DíezC.CarbonellE. (2014). The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): Oldest levels of the galería site (GII unit). Quaternary International, 353(5), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.053
34.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218.
35.
GowlettJ. A. J. (2006). The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: Modes, modalities, rules and language. In Goren-InbarN.SharonG. (eds.) Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 203–221). Equinox.
36.
GowlettJ. A. J. (2013). Elongation as a factor in artefacts of humans and other animals: an Acheulean example in comparative context. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0114
37.
GrankaL.JoachimsT.GayG. (2004). Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in www search. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp. 478–479.
38.
GrosmanL.SmiktO.SmilanskyU. (2008). On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(12), 3101–3110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.06.011
HarelJ.KochC.PeronaP. (2007). Graph-based visual saliency. In Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (NIPS 2006) (pp. 545–552). MIT Press. No.19. ISBN 0-262-19568-2.
41.
HerzlingerG.WynnT.Goren-InbarN. (2017). Expert cognition in the production sequence of Acheulian cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: A lithic and cognitive analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188337
42.
HodgsonD. (2009). Evolution of the visual cortex and the emergence of symmetry in the Acheulean techno-complex. Palevol, 8(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2008.10.009
43.
HodgsonD. (2015). The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2, 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.02.002
44.
HodgsonT. L.EzardG.HermensF. (2019). Eye movements in neuropsychological tasks. In Current topics in behavioral neurosciences (Vol. 41, pp. 393–418). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2019_98.
45.
IoannidouF.HermensF.HodgsonT. L. (2016). The central bias in day-to-day viewing. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 9(6), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.9.6.6
46.
IttiL.KochC. (2001). Computational modelling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience Mar, 2(3), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/35058500
JuravleG.VelascoC.Salgado-MontejoA.SpenceC. (2015). The hand grasps the center, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(May), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00633
49.
KassubaT.KlingeC.HöligC.RöderB.SiebnerH. R. (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
50.
KeyA. J. M.ProffittT.StefaniE.LycettS. J. (2016). Looking at handaxes from another angle: Assessing the ergonomic and functional importance of edge form in Acheulean bifaces. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 44, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.08.002
KrishnaA. (2006). Interaction of senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1086/500486
LepreC. J.RocheH.KentD. v.HarmandS.QuinnR. L.BrugalJ. P.TexierP. J.LenobleA.FeibelC. S. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature, 477(7362), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10372
56.
LycettS. J. (2008). Acheulean variation and selection: Does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations?Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(9), 2640–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.002
57.
MaZ.VickersS.IstanceH.AcklandS.IstanceH.ZhaoX.WangW. (2016). What were we all looking at? Identifying objects of collective visual attention. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 28(3), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1020572
58.
MakrisS.HadarA. A.YarrowK. (2011). Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects. Brain and Cognition, 77(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002
59.
MalafourisL. (2010). The brain–artefact interface (BAI): A challenge for archaeology and cultural neuroscience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp057
60.
MalafourisL. (2013). How things shape the mind : A theory of material engagement. The MIT Press.
MilisavljevicA.AbateF.Le BrasT.GosselinB.MancasM.Doré-MazarsK. (2021). Similarities and differences between eye and mouse dynamics during web pages exploration. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 554595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.554595
63.
MillerL. E.MontroniL.KounE.SalemmeR.HaywardV.FarnèA. (2018). Sensing with tools extends somatosensory processing beyond the body. Nature561(7722), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0460-0.
64.
MullerA.ClarksonC.ShiptonC. (2017). Measuring behavioural and cognitive complexity in lithic technology throughout human evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 48(August), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.07.006
65.
MyachykovA.EllisR.CangelosiA.FischerM. H. (2013). Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Experimental Brain Research, 229(4), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z
NavalpakkamV.JentzschL.SayresR.RaviS.AhmedA.SmolaA. (2013). Measurement and modeling of eye-mouse behavior in the presence of nonlinear page layouts. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web (WWW’13), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 953–964. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488471.
NoormanS.NevilleD. A.SimanovaI. (2018). Words affect visual perception by activating object shape representations. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32483-2
70.
NorciaA. M.CandyT. R.PettetM. W.VildavskiV. Y.TylerC. W. (2005). Temporal dynamics of the human response to symmetry. Journal of Vision, 2(2), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1167/2.2.1
PuttS. S.WijeakumarS.FranciscusR. G.SpencerJ. P. (2017). The functional brain networks that underlie early stone Age tool manufacture. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(6), 0102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0102
77.
RheemH.VermaV.BeckerD. (2018). Use of mouse-tracking method to measure cognitive load. Proceedings of The Human Factors And Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1982–1986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621449
78.
RobertsK. L.HumphreysG. W. (2011). Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(2), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0043-0
RosenholtzR. (2016). Capabilities and limitations of peripheral vision. Annual Review of Vision Science, 2(1), 437–457. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-082114-035733
82.
RütherN. N.TettamantiM.CappaS. F.BellebaumC. (2014). Observed manipulation enhances left fronto-parietal activations in the processing of unfamiliar tools. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99401. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0099401
83.
SamuelF.KerzelD. (2011). Is this object balanced or unbalanced? Judgments Are on the safe Side. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018732
84.
ScheierC. R.ReigberD.EgnerS. (2003). Messen der aufmerksamkeit bei internet nutzern – ansatz und einsatz eines neuen verfahrens zur online messung von aufmerksamkeit. In TheobaldA.DreyerM.StarsetzkiT. (Eds.), Online marktforschung. Theoretische grundlagen und praktische erfahrungen (2nd ed., pp. 309–324). Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-10948-8_21.
85.
SemawS.RogersM. J.QuadeJ.RenneP. R.ButlerR. F.Dominguez-RodrigoM.StoutD.HartW. S.PickeringT.SimpsonS. W. (2003). 2.6-Million-year-old Stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 45(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9
86.
Silva-GagoM.FedatoA.HodgsonT.Terradillos-BernalM.Alonso-AlcaldeR.BrunerE. (2021). Visual attention reveals affordances during lower palaeolithic stone tool exploration. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 13(9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12520-021-01413-1
87.
StoneK. D.GonzalezC. L. R. (2014). Grasping with the eyes of your hands: Hapsis and vision modulate hand preference. Experimental Brain Research, 232(2), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3746-3
StoutD.SemawS.RogersM. J.CaucheD. (2010). Technological variation in the earliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 58(6), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.02.005
90.
TatlerB.HayhoeM.LandM.BallardD. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal Of Vision, 11(5), 5–5. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.5
91.
TatlerB. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.14.4
92.
ThillS.CaligioreD.BorghiA. M.ZiemkeT.BaldassarreG. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2013.01.012
93.
TipperS. P.PaulM. A.HayesA. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(3), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875
94.
TothN.SchickK. (2018). An overview of the cognitive implications of the Oldowan industrial complex. Azania: Archaeological Research In Africa, 53(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270x.2018.1439558
95.
TurveyM. T.CarelloC. (2011). Obtaining information by dynamic (effortful) touching. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1581), 3123–3132. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0159
96.
TurveyM. T.ShockleyK.CarelloC. (1999). Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition, 73(2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00050-5
97.
van der LindenL.MathôtS.VituF. (2015). The role of object affordances and center of gravity in eye movements toward isolated daily-life objects. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.5.8
98.
VingerhoetsG.VandammeK.VercammenA. (2009). Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition, 69(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2008.10.003
XuS.HeinkeD. (2017). Implied between-object actions affect response selection without knowledge about object functionality. Visual Cognition, 25(1-3), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1330792
106.
YarbusA. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5379-7.
107.
ZelditchM.SwiderskiD.SheetsH.FinkW. (2004). Geometric morphometrics for biologists. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-778460-1.X5000-5.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
