↓ Skip to main content

How Our Cognition Shapes and Is Shaped by Technology: A Common Framework for Understanding Human Tool-Use Interactions in the Past, Present, and Future

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
400 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
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
How Our Cognition Shapes and Is Shaped by Technology: A Common Framework for Understanding Human Tool-Use Interactions in the Past, Present, and Future
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00293
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Osiurak, Jordan Navarro, Emanuelle Reynaud

Abstract

Over the evolution, humans have constantly developed and improved their technologies. This evolution began with the use of physical tools, those tools that increase our sensorimotor abilities (e.g., first stone tools, modern knives, hammers, pencils). Although we still use some of these tools, we also employ in daily life more sophisticated tools for which we do not systematically understand the underlying physical principles (e.g., computers, cars). Current research is also turned toward the development of brain-computer interfaces directly linking our brain activity to machines (i.e., symbiotic tools). The ultimate goal of research on this topic is to identify the key cognitive processes involved in these different modes of interaction. As a primary step to fulfill this goal, we offer a first attempt at a common framework, based on the idea that humans shape technologies, which also shape us in return. The framework proposed is organized into three levels, describing how we interact when using physical (Past), sophisticated (Present), and symbiotic (Future) technologies. Here we emphasize the role played by technical reasoning and practical reasoning, two key cognitive processes that could nevertheless be progressively suppressed by the proficient use of sophisticated and symbiotic tools. We hope that this framework will provide a common ground for researchers interested in the cognitive basis of human tool-use interactions, from paleoanthropology to neuroergonomics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 400 X users 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 25%
Arts and Humanities 6 9%
Computer Science 5 8%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 18 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 168. 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 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#246,320
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#521
of 34,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,659
of 349,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#15
of 576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 349,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 576 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.