↓ Skip to main content

The Neuroscience of Storing and Molding Tool Action Concepts: How “Plastic” is Grounded Cognition?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Neuroscience of Storing and Molding Tool Action Concepts: How “Plastic” is Grounded Cognition?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00195
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. C. Mizelle, Lewis A. Wheaton

Abstract

Choosing how to use tools to accomplish a task is a natural and seemingly trivial aspect of our lives, yet engages complex neural mechanisms. Recently, work in healthy populations has led to the idea that tool knowledge is grounded to allow for appropriate recall based on some level of personal history. This grounding has presumed neural loci for tool use, centered on parieto-temporo-frontal areas to fuse perception and action representations into one dynamic system. A challenge for this idea is related to one of its great benefits. For such a system to exist, it must be very plastic, to allow for the introduction of novel tools or concepts of tool use and modification of existing ones. Thus, learning new tool usage (familiar tools in new situations and new tools in familiar situations) must involve mapping into this grounded network while maintaining existing rules for tool usage. This plasticity may present a challenging breadth of encoding that needs to be optimally stored and accessed. The aim of this work is to explore the challenges of plasticity related to changing or incorporating representations of tool action within the theory of grounded cognition and propose a modular model of tool-object goal related accomplishment. While considering the neuroscience evidence for this approach, we will focus on the requisite plasticity for this system. Further, we will highlight challenges for flexibility and organization of already grounded tool actions and provide thoughts on future research to better evaluate mechanisms of encoding in the theory of grounded cognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 30%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 45%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Computer Science 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 6 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,185,611
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,373
of 29,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,090
of 163,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#35
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.