The Cognitive Science of Technology

Neuroplasticity enables bio-cultural feedback in Paleolithic stone-tool making

Stone-tool making is an ancient human skill thought to have played a key role in the bio-cultural co-evolutionary feedback that produced modern brains, culture, and cognition. To test the proposed evolutionary mechanisms underpinning this hypothesis we studied stone-tool making skill learning in modern participants and examined interactions between individual neurostructural differences, plastic accommodation, and culturally transmitted behavior. We found that prior experience with other culturally transmitted craft skills increased both initial stone tool-making performance and subsequent neuroplastic training effects in a frontoparietal white matter pathway associated with action control. These effects were mediated by the effect of experience on pre-training variation in a frontotemporal pathway supporting action semantic representation. Our results show that the acquisition of one technical skill can produce structural brain changes conducive to the discovery and acquisition of additional skills, providing empirical evidence for bio-cultural feedback loops long hypothesized to link learning and adaptive change.

Bringing cumulative technological culture beyond copying versus reasoning

The dominant view of cumulative technological culture suggests that high-fidelity transmission rests upon a high-fidelity copying ability, which allows individuals to reproduce the tool-use actions performed by others without needing to understand them (i.e., without causal reasoning). The opposition between copying versus reasoning is well accepted but with little supporting evidence. In this article, we investigate this distinction by examining the cognitive science literature on tool use. Evidence indicates that the ability to reproduce others' tool-use actions requires causal understanding, which questions the copying versus reasoning distinction and the cognitive reality of the so-called copying ability. We conclude that new insights might be gained by considering causal understanding as a key driver of cumulative technological culture.

The brain of Homo habilis: Three decades of paleoneurology

In 1987, Phillip Tobias published a comprehensive anatomical analysis of the endocasts attributed to Homo habilis, discussing issues dealing with brain size, sulcal patterns, and vascular traces. He suggested that the neuroanatomy of this species evidenced a clear change toward many cerebral traits associated with our genus, mostly when concerning the morphology of the frontal and parietal cortex. After more than 30 years, the fossil record associated with this taxon has not grown that much, but we have much more information on cranial and brain biology, and we are using a larger array of digital methods to investigate the paleoneurological variation observed in the human genus. Brain volume, the size of the frontal lobe, or the gross hemispheric asymmetries are still relevant issues, but they are considered to be less central than before. More attention is instead being paid to the cortical organization, the relationships with the cranial architecture, and the influence of molecular or ecological factors. Although the field of paleoneurology can currently count on a larger range of tools and principles, there is still a general lack of anatomical information on many endocranial traits. This aspect is probably crucial for the agenda of paleoneurology. More importantly, the whole science is undergoing a delicate change, because of the growing influence of the social environment. In this sense, the disciplines working with fossils (and, in particular, with brain evolution) should take particular care to maintain a healthy professional situation, avoiding an excess of speculation and overstatement.

Inferring cultural reproduction from lithic data: A critical review

The cultural reproduction of lithic technology, long an implicit assumption of archaeological theories, has garnered increasing attention over the past decades. Major debates ranging from the origins of the human culture capacity to the interpretation of spatiotemporal patterning now make explicit reference to social learning mechanisms and cultural evolutionary dynamics. This burgeoning literature has produced important insights and methodological innovations. However, this rapid growth has sometimes led to confusion and controversy due to an under-examination of underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions. The time is thus ripe for a critical assessment of progress in the study of the cultural reproduction of lithic technology. Here we review recent work addressing the evolutionary origins of human culture and the meaning of artifact variation at both intrasite and intersite levels. We propose that further progress will require a more extended and context-specific evolutionary approach to address the complexity of real-world cultural reproduction.

Stone toolmaking difficulty and the evolution of hominin technological skills

Stone tools are a manifestation of the complex cognitive and dexterous skills of our hominin ancestors. As such, much research has been devoted to understanding the skill requirements of individual lithic technologies. Yet, comparing skill across different technologies, and thus across the vast timespan of the Palaeolithic, is an elusive goal. We seek to quantify a series of commensurable metrics of knapping skill across four different lithic technologies (discoids, handaxes, Levallois, and prismatic blades). To compare the requisite dexterity, coordination, and care involved in each technology, we analysed video footage and lithic material from a series of replicative knapping experiments to quantify deliberation (strike time), precision (platform area), intricacy (flake size relative to core size), and success (relative blank length). According to these four metrics, discoidal knapping appears to be easiest among the sample. Levallois knapping involved an intricate reduction sequence, but did not require as much motor control as handaxes and especially prismatic blades. Compared with the other Palaeolithic technologies, we conclude that prismatic blade knapping is set apart by being a skill intensive means of producing numerous standardised elongate end-products.

Why and How Did Narrative Fictions Evolve? Fictions as Entertainment Technologies

Narrative fictions have surely become the single most widespread source of entertainment in the world. In their free time, humans read novels and comics, watch movies and TV series, and play video games: they consume stories that they know to be false. Such behaviors are expanding at lightning speed in modern societies. Yet, the question of the origin of fictions has been an evolutionary puzzle for decades: Are fictions biological adaptations, or the by-products of cognitive mechanisms that evolved for another purpose? The absence of any consensus in cognitive science has made it difficult to explain how narrative fictions evolve culturally. We argue that current conflicting hypotheses are partly wrong, and partly right: narrative fictions are by-products of the human mind, because they obviously co-opt some pre-existing cognitive preferences and mechanisms, such as our interest for social information, and our abilities to do mindreading and to imagine counterfactuals. But humans reap some fitness benefits from producing and consuming such appealing cultural items, making fictions adaptive. To reconcile these two views, we put forward the hypothesis that narrative fictions are best seen as entertainment technologies that is, as items crafted by some people for the proximate goal to grab the attention of other people, and with the ultimate goal to fulfill other evolutionary-relevant functions that become easier once other people's attention is caught. This hypothesis explains why fictions are filled with exaggerated and entertaining stimuli, why they fit so well the changing preferences of the audience they target, and why producers constantly make their fictions more attractive as time goes by, in a cumulative manner.

On the psychological origins of tool use

The ubiquity of tool use in human life has generated multiple lines of scientific and philosophical investigation to understand the development and expression of humans' engagement with tools and its relation to other dimensions of human experience. However, existing literature on tool use faces several epistemological challenges in which the same set of questions generate many different answers. At least four critical questions can be identified, which are intimately intertwined-(1) What constitutes tool use? (2) What psychological processes underlie tool use in humans and nonhuman animals? (3) Which of these psychological processes are exclusive to tool use? (4) Which psychological processes involved in tool use are exclusive to Homo sapiens? To help advance a multidisciplinary scientific understanding of tool use, six author groups representing different academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology, psychology, neuroscience) and different theoretical perspectives respond to each of these questions, and then point to the direction of future work on tool use. We find that while there are marked differences among the responses of the respective author groups to each question, there is a surprising degree of agreement about many essential concepts and questions. We believe that this interdisciplinary and intertheoretical discussion will foster a more comprehensive understanding of tool use than any one of these perspectives (or any one of these author groups) would (or could) on their own.

The Technological Condition of Human Evolution: Lithic Studies as Basic Science

The recent elaboration and rapid expansion of aDNA, paleoproteomics, and related fields have propelled a profound "biomolecular turn" in archaeology and fundamentally changed the topology of archaeological knowledge production. Such a transformation of the archaeological research landscape is not without consequence for long-standing research practices in the field, such as lithic analysis. This special issue derives from the session Old Stones, New Eyes? organized by the authors at the UISPP World Congress in Paris in 2018, which aimed to explore the future of lithic studies. An underlying theme of our session was the felt need to respond to the increasing marginalization of lithic research in terms of its capacity to (1) contribute to the grand narratives of early human evolution and (2) better articulate the role and significance of lithic studies in interdisciplinary human origins research. In this editorial, we briefly outline some of the questions and challenges raised by the biomolecular turn and advocate for a more self-conscious and reflexive stance among lithic experts. We argue that lithic studies fulfill all necessary requirements to act as a basic science for human origins research and that its role and status depends less on technological advances, such as, e.g., improved computing facilities, novel analytical software, or automated shape capture technologies, than on continuous work on the conceptual and methodological foundations of inquiry. We finally draw attention to the unique capability of lithic studies to shed light on the human technological condition and illustrate this potential by introducing and briefly discussing the papers included in this issue.