Human Tool Use and the Left Inferior Parietal Cortex

Abstract

Humans are unique in being proficient tool users and showing specific tool use behavioural patterns that do not exist in nonhuman users (e.g. use of one tool to create another). A fundamental issue for cognitive neuroscience is to understand the neurocognitive bases of human tool use. A longā€standing hypothesis is that the human brain stores knowledge about how to manipulate tools with the hand (i.e. manipulation knowledge). This hypothesis has been challenged in recent years by neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings. Rather, it seems that the uniqueness of human tool use might be based on the ability to reason about physical object properties (i.e. technical reasoning). Some key brain regions within the left inferior parietal cortex might be involved in these reasoning skills.

Key Concepts

  • If tool use is not specific to humans, human tool use differs from animal tool use in several respects.
  • Tool use is impaired after damage to the left inferior parietal cortex.
  • The human inferior parietal cortex contains brain areas that do not exist in macaques and other nonhuman primates.
  • Some of these brain areas might support the uniquely human ability to reason about physical object properties, which is critical to human tool use.

Keywords: tool use; left inferior parietal cortex; technical reasoning; manipulation knowledge; motor control

Figure 1. Posterior parietal cortex in humans and macaques. Abbreviations in human brain: AG, angular gyrus; aIPS, anterior intraparietal sulcus; cIPS, caudal intraparietal sulcus; dPM, dorsal premotor cortex; IPL, inferior parietal lobule; IPS, intraparietal sulcus; mIPS, middle intraparietal sulcus; PCu, precuneus; PoCG, postcentral gyrus; PoCS, postcentral sulcus; POTZ, parieto‐occipital transition zone; SMG, supramarginal gyrus; SPL, superior parietal lobule and vPM, ventral premotor cortex. Abbreviations in macaque brain: AIP, anterior intraparietal area; CIP, caudal intraparietal area; F2, frontal area 2; F5, frontal area 5; FEF, frontal eye fields; IPL, inferior parietal lobule; MIP, medial intraparietal area; LIP, lateral intraparietal area; POS, parieto‐occipital sulcus; PRR, parietal reach region; SPL, superior parietal lobule; VIP, ventral intraparietal area; V6, visual area 6 and V6A, visual area 6A. Reproduced courtesy of Guy Vingerhoets, Ghent Universityu, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License
Figure 2. Neurocognitive view of the technical reasoning hypothesis. Technical reasoning mainly involves the cytorarchitectonic area PF within the left inferior parietal lobe (IPL). This reasoning is dedicated to the understanding and generation of mechanical actions (i.e. tool–object relationships). Motor control is preferentially associated with the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and deals with the planning and execution of motor actions (i.e., hand–tool relationships). This view is supported by a recent neuroimaging meta‐analysis, which demonstrated that tasks focusing on mechanical actions activate the area PF, whereas those focusing on motor actions activate IPS (Reynaud et al., ). The anterior portion of the supramarginal gyrus (aSMG) is thought as an integrative area, thereby playing a key role in biasing signals to IPS to favour the selection of the handgrip that best suits the correct use of the tool generated by technical reasoning (area PF; for a similar proposal, see Orban and Caruana, ). Abbreviations: IPL, inferior parietal lobe; aSMG, anterior supramarginal gyrus; IPS, intraparietal sulcus; phAIP, putative human homologue of anterior intraparietal sulcus; DIPSA, anterior dorsal intraparietal sulcus; DIPSM, medial dorsal intraparietal sulcus and PF, parietal area F.
close

References

Baumard J, Osiurak F, Lesourd M, et al. (2014) Tool use disorders after left brain damage. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 473.

Buxbaum LJ (2001) Ideomotor apraxia: a call to action. Neurocase 7: 445–448.

Buxbaum LJ (2017) Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: distributed neurocognitive mechanism. Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016). Psychological Review 124: 346–360.

Caruana F and Cuccio V (2017) Types of abduction in tool behavior. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 16: 255–273. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-015-9450-y.

Goldenberg G and Spatt J (2009) The neural basis of tool use. Brain 132: 1645–1655.

Heilman KM, Rothi LJ and Valenstein E (1982) Two forms of ideomotor apraxia. Neurology 32: 342–346.

Hermsdörfer J (2014) Role of manipulation knowledge in routine tool use. Cortex 57: 292–293.

Johnson‐Frey SH, Newman‐Norlund R and Grafton ST (2005) A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. Cerebral Cortex 15: 681–695.

Liepmann H (1908) Drei aufsatze aus dem apraxiegebiet. Berlin: Karger.

Martin M, Beume L and Kümmerer D (2016) Differential roles of ventral and dorsal streams for conceptual and production‐related components of tool use in acute stroke patients. Cerebral Cortex 26: 3754–3771.

Martin‐Ordas G, Call J and Colmenares F (2008) Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks. Animal Cognition 11: 423–430.

Metpally RPR, Nasser S, Malenica I, et al. (2013) Comparison of analysis tools for miRNA high throughput sequencing using nerve crush as a model. Frontiers in Genetics 4: 20.

Orban GA and Caruana F (2014) The neural basis of human tool use. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 310.

Osiurak F (2014) What neuropsychology tells us about human tool use? The four constraints theory (4CT): mechanics, space, time, and effort. Neuropsychology Review 24: 88–115.

Osiurak F (2016) What is the future for tool‐specific generalized motor programs? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-016-9470-2.

Osiurak F and Badets A (2017) Use of tools and misuse of embodied cognition: reply to Buxbaum (2017). Psychology Review 124: 361–368.

Osiurak F, Jarry C, Allain P, et al. (2009) Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model. Cortex 45: 769–783.

Osiurak F, Jarry C and Le Gall D (2010) Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning. Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychology Review 117: 517–540.

Osiurak F and Rossetti Y (2017) Limb apraxia. Cortex. 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.03.010.

Peeters R, Simone L, Nelissen K, et al. (2009) The representation of tool use in humans and monkeys: common and uniquely human features. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 11523–11539.

Penn DC, Holyoak KJ and Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 109–130.

Poizner H, Clark M, Merians AS, et al. (1995) Joint coordination in limb apraxia. Brain 118: 227–242.

Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk Physics for Apes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Povinelli DJ and Frey SH (2016) Constraints on the exploitation of the functional properties of objects in expert tool‐using chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Cortex 82: 11–23.

Reynaud E, Lesourd M, Navarro J, et al. (2016) On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use: a critical review of neuroimaging data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 64: 421–437.

Rothi LJG, Ochipa C and Heilman KM (1991) A cognitive neuropsychological model of limb praxis. Cognitive Neuropsychology 8: 443–458.

Shumaker RW, Walkup KR and Beck BB (2011) Animal Tool Behavior. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

van Elk M, van Schie H and Bekkering H (2014) Action semantics: a unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality‐specific object knowledge. Physics of Life Reviews 11: 220–250.

Vingerhoets G (2014) Contribution of the posterior parietal cortex in reaching, grasping, and using objects and tools. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 151.

Visalberghi E and Limongelli L (1994) Lack of comprehension of cause‐effect relations in tool‐using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology 108: 15–22.

Further Reading

Goldenberg G (2013) Apraxia: The Cognitive Side of Motor Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldenberg G and Hagmann S (1998) Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 36: 581–589.

Osiurak F and Badets A (2016) Tool use and affordance: manipulation‐based versus reasoning‐based approaches. Psychology Review 123: 534–568.

Osiurak F and Heinke D (2017) Looking for Intoolligence: a unified framework for the cognitive study of human tool use and technology. American Psychologist. 10.1037/amp0000162.

Osiurak F, Rossetti Y and Badets A (2017) What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 77: 404–417.

Penn DC and Povinelli DJ (2007) Causal cognition in human and nonhuman animals: a comparative, critical review. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 97–118.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Osiurak, François(Aug 2017) Human Tool Use and the Left Inferior Parietal Cortex. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027072]