Understanding how components of action tool knowledge are organized and interact is crucial for elucidating the cognitive and neural basis of tool use. In this study, we examined the relationship between two key dimensions: hand posture and manipulation. Forty-eight participants made similarity judgments based on these dimensions across pairs of familiar tools. Results revealed an asymmetrical interference pattern: judgments about manipulation were significantly influenced by hand posture, whereas the reverse effect was weaker. This asymmetry was modulated by perceptual similarity, particularly when participants attended to hand posture, suggesting a dynamic interaction between perceptual and conceptual features. Notably, perceptual similarity judgments were not solely explained by low-level visual features but were also influenced by stored action tool representations. This indicates that participants spontaneously activated integrated tool knowledge even during perceptual tasks. These findings support a model of action tool knowledge, with hand posture emerging as a primary dimension that influences and potentially precedes manipulation. Together, these results provide new insights into the cognitive architecture of tool knowledge and offer a foundation for future studies exploring the interaction between perceptual, motoric, and conceptual dimensions in action tool knowledge.
AlmeidaJ.FracassoA.KristensenS.ValérioD.BergströmF.ChakravarthiR.TalZ.WalbrinJ. (2023). Neural and behavioral signatures of the multidimensionality of manipulable object processing. Communications Biology, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05323-x
2.
AndresM.PelgrimsB.OlivierE. (2013). Distinct contribution of the parietal and temporal cortex to hand configuration and contextual judgements about tools. Cortex, 49(8), 2097–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.11.013
3.
ArbibM. A.BonaiutoJ. B.JacobsS.FreyS. H. (2009). Tool use and the distalization of the end-effector. Psychological Research, 73(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0242-2
4.
BachP.NicholsonT.HudsonM. (2014). The affordance-matching hypothesis: How objects guide action understanding and prediction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(MAY), Article 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00254
5.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BenjaminiY.YekutieliD. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29(4), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998
7.
BorghiA. M.RiggioL. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(JUNE), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351
8.
BoronatC. B.BuxbaumL. J.CoslettH. B.TangK.SaffranE. M.KimbergD. Y.DetreJ. A. (2005). Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(2–3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001
BuxbaumL. J. (2001). Ideomotor apraxia: A call to action. Neurocase, 7, 445–448.
11.
BuxbaumL. J. (2017). Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: Distributed neurocognitive mechanisms: Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016). Psychological Review, 124(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000051
12.
BuxbaumL. J.KyleK.GrossmanM.CoslettH. B. (2007). Left inferior parietal representations for skilled hand-object interactions: Evidence from stroke and corticobasal degeneration. Cortex, 43(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70466-0
13.
BuxbaumL. J.SaffranE. M. (2002). Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language, 82(2), 153–164. https://www.academicpress.com
14.
BuxbaumL. J.ShapiroA. D.CoslettH. B. (2014). Critical brain regions for tool-related and imitative actions: A componential analysis. Brain, 137(7), 1971–1985. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu111
15.
CanessaN.BorgoF.CappaS. F.PeraniD.FaliniA.BuccinoG.TettamantiM.ShalliceT. (2008). The different neural correlates of action and functional knowledge in semantic memory: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 18(4), 740–751. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm110
16.
ChenJ.SnowJ. C.CulhamJ. C.GoodaleM. A. (2018). What role does “elongation” play in “tool-specific” activation and connectivity in the dorsal and ventral visual streams?Cerebral Cortex, 28(4), 1117–1131. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx017
17.
CreemS. H.ProffittD. R. (2001). Grasping objects by their handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.218
18.
CubelliR.MarchettiC.BoscoloG.Della SalaS. (2000). Cognition in action: Testing a model of limb apraxia. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2000.1226
19.
De BellisF.MagliacanoA.SaglianoL.ConsonM.GrossiD.TrojanoL. (2020). Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: Evidence from rTMS. Psychological Research, 84(4), 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1117-1
20.
DecroixJ.KalénineS. (2018). Timing of grip and goal activation during action perception: A priming study. Experimental Brain Research, 236(8), 2411–2426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5309-0
21.
De JongR.LiangC.-C.LauberE. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731
22.
EllisR.TuckerM. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161928.
23.
FabbriS.StubbsK. M.CusackR.CulhamJ. C. (2016). Disentangling representations of object and grasp properties in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(29), 7648–7662. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0313-16.2016
24.
GarceaF. E.MahonB. Z. (2012). What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 40(8), 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0236-y
GoldenbergG.HagmannS. (1998). Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 36(7), 581–589. https://doi.org/S0028-3932(97)00165-6
27.
Gonzalez RothiL. J.OchipaC.HeilmanK. M. (1991). A cognitive neuropsychological model of limb apraxis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 443–458.
28.
HaddadL.WamainY.KalénineS. (2024). Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231161310
29.
HebartM. N.ZhengC. Y.PereiraF.BakerC. I. (2020). Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00951-3
30.
HussainA.WalbrinJ.TochadseM.AlmeidaJ. (2024). Primary manipulation knowledge of objects is associated with the functional coupling of pMTG and aIPS. Neuropsychologia, 205(June), Article 109034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.109034
31.
IshibashiR.Lambon RalphM. A.SaitoS.PobricG. (2011). Different roles of lateral anterior temporal lobe and inferior parietal lobule in coding function and manipulation tool knowledge: Evidence from an rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.004
32.
JarryC.OsiurakF.BesnardJ.BaumardJ.LesourdM.CroisileB.Etcharry-BouyxF.ChauviréV.Le GallD. (2016). Tool use in left brain damage and Alzheimer’s disease: What about function and manipulation knowledge?Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(1), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12097
33.
JarryC.OsiurakF.DelafuysD.ChauviréV.Etcharry-BouyxF.Le GallD. (2013). Apraxia of tool use: More evidence for the technical reasoning hypothesis. Cortex, 49(9), 2322–2333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.02.011
34.
JaxS. A.BuxbaumL. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.004
35.
KalénineS.BuxbaumL. J. (2016). Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge. Cortex, 82, 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.06.008
36.
KalénineS.WamainY.DecroixJ.CoelloY. (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
37.
KellenbachM. L.BrettM.PattersonK. (2003). Actions speak louder than functions: The importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107819
38.
KleinebergN. N.DovernA.BinderE.GrefkesC.EickhoffS. B.FinkG. R.WeissP. H. (2018). Action and semantic tool knowledge – Effective connectivity in the underlying neural networks. Human Brain Mapping, 39(9), 3473–3486. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24188
39.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
40.
LesourdM.BudriesiC.OsiurakF.NichelliP. F.BartoloA. (2019). Mechanical knowledge does matter to tool use even when assessed with a non-production task: Evidence from left brain-damaged patients. Journal of Neuropsychology, 13(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12140
41.
LesourdM.MartinJ.HagueS.LarozeM.ClémentG.ComteA.MedeirosdeBustosE.FargeixG.MagninE.MoulinT. (2024). Organization of conceptual tool knowledge following left and right brain lesions: Evidence from neuropsychological dissociations and multivariate disconnectome symptom mapping. Brain and Cognition, 181, Article 106210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106210
42.
LesourdM.NaëgeléB.JaillardA.DetanteO.OsiurakF. (2020). Using tools effectively despite defective hand posture: A single-case study. Cortex, 129, 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.023
LesourdM.ReynaudE.NavarroJ.GaujouxV.Faye-VédrinesA.AlexandreB.BaumardJ.FedericoG.LambertonF.IbarrolaD.RossettiY.OsiurakF. (2023). Involvement of the posterior tool processing network during explicit retrieval of action tool and semantic tool knowledge: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 33(11), 6526–6542. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac522
45.
LesourdM.ServantM.BaumardJ.ReynaudE.EcochardC.MedjaouiF. T.BartoloA.OsiurakF. (2021). Semantic and action tool knowledge in the brain: Identifying common and distinct networks. Neuropsychologia, 159, Article 107918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107918
46.
MartinM.DressingA.BormannT.SchmidtC. S. M.KümmererD.BeumeL.SaurD.MaderI.RijntjesM.KallerC. P.WeillerC. (2017). Componential network for the recognition of tool-associated actions: Evidence from voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping in acute stroke patients. Cerebral Cortex, 27(8), 4139–4152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw226
47.
MikolovT.ChenK.CorradoG.DeanJ. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013 – Workshop Track Proceedings (pp. 1–12). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781
48.
MirmanD.LandriganJ. F.BrittA. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092
49.
OsiurakF. (2014). Mechanical knowledge, but not manipulation knowledge, might support action prediction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 737.
50.
OsiurakF.BadetsA. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychological Review, 123(5), 534–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000027
51.
OsiurakF.BadetsA. (2017). Use of tools and misuse of embodied cognition: Reply to Buxbaum (2017). Psychological Review, 124(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000065
52.
OsiurakF.JarryC.AllainP.AubinG.Etcharry-BouyxF.RichardI.BernardI.Le GallD. (2009). Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model. Cortex, 45(6), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.06.013
53.
OsiurakF.JarryC.Le GallD. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review, 117(2), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019004
PelgrimsB.OlivierE.AndresM. (2011). Dissociation between manipulation and conceptual knowledge of object use in theSupramarginalis gyrus. Human Brain Mapping, 32(11), 1802–1810. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21149
58.
PeriniF.CaramazzaA.PeelenM. V. (2014). Left occipitotemporal cortex contributes to the discrimination of tool-associated hand actions: fMRI and TMS evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(AUG), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00591
59.
RanderathJ.GoldenbergG.SpijkersW.LiY.HermsdörferJ. (2010). Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use. NeuroImage, 53(1), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.038
60.
RoyE. A.SquareP. A. (1985). Common considerations in the study of limb, verbal and oral apraxia. In RoyE. A. (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of apraxia and related disorders (pp. 111–161). Elsevier.
61.
SalmonJ. P.MathesonH. E.McMullenP. A. (2014). Photographs of manipulable objects are named more quickly than the same objects depicted as line-drawings: Evidence that photographs engage embodiment more than line-drawings. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(OCT), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01187
62.
SiriguA.CohenL.DuhamelJ. R.PillonB.DuboisB.AgidY. (1995). A selective impairment of hand posture for object utilization in apraxia. Cortex, 31(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80104-9
ThillS.CaligioreD.BorghiA. M.ZiemkeT.BaldassarreG. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.012
65.
TuckerM.EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(6), 830–846.
66.
WamainY.SahaïA.DecroixJ.CoelloY.KalénineS. (2018). Conflict between gesture representations extinguishes μ rhythm desynchronization during manipulable object perception: An EEG study. Biological Psychology, 132(June 2017), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.12.004
67.
WatsonC. E.BuxbaumL. J. (2014). Uncovering the architecture of action semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 1832–1848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037449
68.
ZhangL.ZhangL.MouX.ZhangD. (2011). FSIM: A feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(8), 2378–2386. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2011.2109730
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.
