Kiến thức có ảnh hưởng đến sự chú ý thị giác không? Phân tích so sánh giữa các nhà khảo cổ và đối tượng không có kiến thức trong quá trình khám phá các công cụ Thượng bàn đá

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences - Tập 14 - Trang 1-10 - 2022
María Silva-Gago1,2, Annapaola Fedato2, Marcos Terradillos-Bernal3, Rodrigo Alonso-Alcalde4, Timothy Hodgson5, Emiliano Bruner2
1Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
2Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain
3Universidad Isabel I, Burgos, Spain
4Museo de la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain
5University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

Tóm tắt

Vai trò của kinh nghiệm trong quá trình khám phá các hiện vật đá có thể được nghiên cứu qua nhiều phương pháp khác nhau. Kiến thức có thể ảnh hưởng đến cảm nhận thị giác về môi trường, trong khi "các khả năng hành động" có thể được xử lý ngay từ cái nhìn đầu tiên về một đối tượng. Trong nghiên cứu này, chúng tôi đã sử dụng công nghệ theo dõi mắt để phân tích xem liệu và mức độ nào kiến thức khảo cổ có thể ảnh hưởng đến sự chú ý thị giác trong khi tương tác với các công cụ đá. Các nhà khảo cổ được phát hiện đã dành nhiều sự chú ý thị giác hơn cho khu vực giữa và bề mặt đã được đập. Sự khác biệt giữa việc khám phá thị giác các công cụ chopper và handaxe cũng được tìm thấy. Mặc dù mô hình phân bố chung của sự chú ý thị giác tương tự như ở các đối tượng không có kiến thức, các tham gia viên có kinh nghiệm khảo cổ đã chú ý nhiều hơn đến các khu vực liên quan đến chức năng. Những người có kinh nghiệm khảo cổ đã hướng sự chú ý nhiều hơn đến khu vực trên cùng và bề mặt đã được đập của các công cụ, trong khi các đối tượng không có kinh nghiệm đã dành nhiều thời gian hơn để xem khu vực giữa. Chúng tôi kết luận rằng mặc dù cả hai nhóm đều có thể định hướng sự chú ý đến các đặc điểm có liên quan đến hành động trong các công cụ đá, nhưng các khả năng chức năng có tác động lớn hơn đối với những người tham gia có kinh nghiệm trước đó. Các khả năng liên quan đến thao tác kích thích sự chú ý thấp hơn và không cho thấy sự khác biệt giữa các tham gia viên.

Từ khóa

#khảo cổ học #sự chú ý thị giác #công cụ đá #theo dõi mắt #kinh nghiệm

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ambrose SH (2001) Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291:1748–1753 Ambrosini E, Costantini M (2016) Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 43:360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000330 Atkinson J (2008) The developing visual brain. Oxford University Press Baena Preysler J, Torres Navas C, Sharon G (2018) Life history of a large flake biface. Quatern Sci Rev 190:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.04.015 Bar M, Kassam KS, Ghuman AS et al (2006) Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. PNAS 103(2):449–454. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507062103 Binkofski F, Buxbaum LJ (2013) Two action systems in the human brain. Brain Lang 127:222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2012.07.007 Borghi AM (2007) Object concepts and embodiment: why sensorimotor and cognitive process cannot be separated. J Exp Psychol Gen 135:1–11 Borghi AM, Flumini A, Natraj N, Wheaton LA (2012) One hand, two objects: emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain and cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.007 Bril B, Rein R, Nonaka T et al (2010) The role of expertise in tool use: skill differences in functional action adaptations to task constraints. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:825–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0018171 Bruner E (2018) Human paleoneurology and the evolution of the parietal cortex. Brain, Behaviour and Evolution 91:136–147 Bruner E, Iriki A (2016) Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus. Quatern Int 405:98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.019 Bruner E, Lozano M (2014) Extended mind and visuo-spatial integration: three hands for the Neanderthal lineage. J Anthropol Sci 92:273–280 Bruner E (2021) Evolving human brains: paleoneurology and the fate of Middle Pleistocene. J Archaeol Method Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-095008 Bruner E, Gleeson BT (2019) Body cognition and self-domestication in human evolution. Front Psychol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01111 Bruner E, Fedato A, Silva-Gago M et al (2018a) Visuospatial integration and hand-tool interaction in cognitive archaeology. In: Hodgson T (ed) Processes of Visuospatial Attention and Working Memory. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 41:13–36 Bruner E, Spinapolice E, Burke A, Overmann KA (2018b) Visuospatial integration: paleoanthropological and archaeological perspectives. In Di paolo LD, DI Vincenzo F, De Petrillo F (eds) Evolution of Primates Social Cognition. Springer, pp 299–326. Burke A (2012) Spatial abilities, cognition and the pattern of Neanderthal and modern human dispersals. Quatern Int 247:230–235 Cosentino E (2021) Artifacts and affordances. Synthese 198:4007–4026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02297-4 Craighero L, Fadiga L, Umiltà CA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Evidence for visuomotor priming effect. NeuroReport 8:347–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199612200-00068 Creem-Regehr SH, Lee JN (2005) Neural representations of graspable objects: are tools special? Cogn Brain Res 22:457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.10.006 Criado-Boado F, Alonso-Pablos D, Blanco MJ, et al (2019) Coevolution of visual behaviour, the material world and social complexity, depicted by the eye-tracking of archaeological objects in humans. Sci Rep 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39661-w Fedato A, Silva-Gago M, Terradillos-Bernal M et al (2020) Hand morphometrics, electrodermal activity, and stone tools haptic perception. Am J Hum Biol 32:e23370. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23370 Fedato A, Silva-Gago M, Terradillos-Bernal M et al (2019) Electrodermal activity during Lower Paleolithic stone tool handling. American Journal Of Human Biology, 31(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23279 Federico G, Osiurak F, Brandimonte MA (2021) Hazardous tools: the emergence of reasoning in human tool use. Psychol Res 85(8):3108–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01466-2 Federico G, Osiurak F, Reynaud E, Brandimonte MA (2021) Semantic congruency effects of prime words on tool visual exploration. Brain Cogn 152:105758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105758 Federico G, Brandimonte MA (2019) Tool and object affordances: an ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognitionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.103582 Federico G, Osiurak F, Brandimonte MA, Salvatore M, Cavaliere C (2022) The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects. Psychol Res. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-766686/v1 Foerster FR, Goslin J (2021) Tool use and function knowledge shape visual object processing. Biol Psychol 164:108143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2021.108143 García-Medrano P, Ollé A, Mosquera M et al (2014) The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII Unit). Quatern Int 353:170–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.053 Geribàs N, Mosquera M, Vergès JM (2010) What novice knappers have to learn to become expert stone toolmakers. J Archaeol Sci 37:2857–2870. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAS.2010.06.026 Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press Gowlett JAJ (2006) The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language. In: Goren-Inbar N, Sharon G (eds) Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp 203–221 Hammer DAT, Ryan PD, Hammer Ø, Harper DAT (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis Humphreys GW, Jane Riddoch M (2001) Detection by action: neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nature Neuroscience 2001 4:1 4:84–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/82940 Ioannidou F, Hermens F, Hodgson TL (2016) The central bias in day to day viewing. J Eye Mov Res 9:5–6. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.9.6.6 Jacquet PO, Chambon V, Borghi AM, Tessari A (2012) Object affordances tune observers’ prior expectations about tool-use behaviors. PLoS ONE 7:e39629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039629 Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002 Kassuba T, Klinge C, Hölig C et al (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 Key A, Proffitt T, Stefani E, Lycett SJ (2016) Looking at handaxes from another angle: assessing the ergonomic and functional importance of edge form in Acheulean bifaces. J Anthropol Archaeol 44:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.08.002 Key A, Merritt SR, Kivell TL (2018) Hand grip diversity and frequency during the use of Lower Palaeolithic stone cutting-tools. J Hum Evol 125:137–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.08.006 Land MF (2006) Eye movements and the control of actions in everyday life. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research Lombao D, Guardiola M, Mosquera M (2017) Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language. Scientific Reports 2017 7:1 7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14322-y Makris S, Hadar AA, Yarrow K (2011) Viewing objects and planning actions: on the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects. Brain Cogn 77:257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002 Myachykov A, Ellis R, Cangelosi A, Fischer MH (2013) Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Exp Brain Res 229:545–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z Natraj N, Pella YM, Borghi AM, Wheaton LA (2015) The visual encoding of tool–object affordances. Neuroscience 310:512–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.060 Natraj N, Alterman B, Basunia S, Wheaton LA (2018) The role of attention and saccades on parietofrontal encoding of contextual and grasp-specific affordances of tools: an ERP study. Neuroscience 394:243–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROSCIENCE.2018.10.019 Ni L, Liu Y, Yu W (2019) The dominant role of functional action representation in object recognition. Experimental Brain Research 2018 237:2 237:363–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00221-018-5426-9 Nonaka T, Bril B, Rein R (2010) How do stone knappers predict and control the outcome of flaking? Implications for understanding early stone tool technology. J Hum Evol 59:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHEVOL.2010.04.006 Noorman S, Neville DA, Simanova I (2018) Words affect visual perception by activating object shape representations. Scientific Reports 2018 8:1 8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32483-2 Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 Osiurak F, Federico G (2021) Four ways of (mis-)conceiving embodiment in tool use. Synthese 199:3853–3879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02960-1 Osiurak F, Rossetti Y, Badets A (2017) What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 77:403–417 Osiurak F, Federico G, Brandimonte MA, Reynaud E, Lesourd M (2020) On the temporal dynamics of tool use. Front Hum Neurosci 14:579378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.579378 Pargeter J, Khreisheh N, Stout D (2019) Understanding stone tool-making skill acquisition: experimental methods and evolutionary implications. J Hum Evol 133:146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHEVOL.2019.05.010 Pargeter J, Kreisheh N, Shea JJ, Stout D (2020) Knowledge vs. know-how? Dissecting the foundations of stone knapping skill. J Human Evol 145:102807. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHEVOL.2020.102807 Pelegrin J (1993) A framework for analysing prehistoric stone tool manufacture and a tentative application to some early stone industries. In: Berthelet A, Chavaillon J (eds) The use of tools be human and non-human primates. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 302–314 Pereira-Pedro AS, Bruner E, Gunz P, Neubauer S (2020) A morphometric comparison of the parietal lobe in modern humans and Neanderthals. J Hum Evol 142:102770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102770 Peretto C, Amore FO, Antoniazzi A, et al (1998) L’industrie lithique de Ca’Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo : Stratigraphie, matière première, typologie, remontages et traces d’utilisation Proverbio AM, Adorni R, D’Aniello GE (2011) 250 ms to code for action affordance during observation of manipulable objects. Neuropsychologia 49:2711–2717. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2011.05.019 Ralph MA, Jefferies E, Patterson K, Rogers TT (2017) The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 18(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.150 Rivero O, Garate D (2020) Motion and gesture: analysing artistic skills in Palaeolithic art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2020 27:3 27:561–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10816-020-09476-5 Roberts KL, Humphreys GW (2011) Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:597–612. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0043-0 Rüther NN, Tettamanti M, Cappa SF, Bellebaum C (2014) Observed manipulation enhances left fronto-parietal activations in the processing of unfamiliar tools. PLoS ONE 9:e99401. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0099401 Sakreida K, Effnert I, Thill S et al (2016) Affordance processing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream sub-pathways. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 69:89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2016.07.032 Semaw S, Rogers MJ, Quade J et al (2003) 2.6-million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar. Ethiopia J Human Evol 45:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9 Shea JJ (2020) Cores and core-tools. In: Prehistoric stone tools of Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, pp 137–164 Silva-Gago M, Ioannidou F, Fedato A et al (2022) Visual attention and cognitive archaeology: an eye-tracking study of Paleolithic stone tools. Perception 51(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211069504 Silva-Gago M, Fedato A, Hodgson T, et al (2021a) Visual attention reveals affordances during Lower Palaeolithic stone tool exploration. Archaeological and anthropological sciences 13:9 13:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12520-021-01413-1 Silva‐Gago M, Fedato A, Terradillos‐Bernal M, et al (2021b) Not a matter of shape: the influence of tool characteristics on electrodermal activity in response to haptic exploration of Lower Palaeolithic tools. American Journal Of Human Biology e23612. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23612 Stone KD, Gonzalez CLR (2015) Manual preferences for visually- and haptically-guided grasping. Acta Physiol (oxf) 160:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.004 Stout D, Passingham R, Frith C et al (2011) Technology, expertise and social cognition in human evolution. Eur J Neurosci 33:1328–1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1460-9568.2011.07619.X Tatler BW (2007) The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision 7https://doi.org/10.1167/7.14.4 Torres C, Preysler JB (2020) Experts also fail: a new methodological approach to skills analysis in lithic industries. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology 2020 3:4 3:889–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41982-020-00063-4 Tseng PH, Carmi R, Cameron IGM et al (2009) Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. J vis 9:4. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4 Xu S, Heinke D (2017) Implied between-object actions affect response selection without knowledge about object functionality. 101080/1350628520171330792 25:152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1330792 Turvey MT, Carello C (2011) Obtaining information by dynamic (effortful) touching. Philos Trans Royal Soc b: Bio Sci 366:3123–3132 Vaesen K (2012) The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behav Brain Sci 35(4):203–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001452 Venditti F, Agam A, Tirillò J et al (2021) An integrated study discloses chopping tools use from Late Acheulean Revadim (Israel). PLoS ONE 16:e0245595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245595 Vingerhoets G, Vandamme K, Vercammen A (2009) Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain Cogn 69:481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2008.10.003 Wagman JB, Carello C (2003) Haptically creating affordances: the user-tool interface. J Exp Psychol Appl 9:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.175 Williams-Hatala EM, Hatala KG, Key A, et al (2020) Kinetics of stone tool production among novice and expert tool makers. American Journal of Physical Anthropologyhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24159 Wurm MF, Caramazza A (2019) Distinct roles of temporal and frontoparietal cortex in representing actions across vision and language. Nat Commun 10(1):289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08084-y Wynn T (2020) Ergonomic clusters and displaced affordances in early lithic technology. Adaptive Behavior 105971232093233https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712320932333 Zorrilla-Revilla G, Vidal-Cordasco M, Prado-Nóvoa O, Terradillos-Bernal M (2021) Know-how, or how knapping experience can affect a prehistoric lithic workshop. 101080/0197726120211911207 46:221–235.