Tool use research has suffered from a lack of consistent theoretical frameworks. There is a plethora of tool use definitions and the most widespread ones are so inclusive that the behaviors that fall under them arguably do not have much in common. The situation is aggravated by the prevalence of anecdotes, which have played an undue role in the literature. In order to provide a more rigorous foundation for research and to advance our understanding of the interrelation between tool use and cognition, we suggest the adoption of Fragaszy and Mangalam's (2018) tooling framework, which is characterized by the creation of a body-plus-object system that manages a mechanical interface between tool and surface. Tooling is limited to a narrower suite of behaviors than tool use, which might facilitate its neurocognitive investigation. Indeed, evidence in the literature indicates that tooling has distinct neurocognitive underpinnings not shared by other activities typically classified as tool use, at least in primates. In order to understand the extent of tooling incidences in previous research, we systematically surveyed the comprehensive tool use catalog by Shumaker et al. (2011). We identified 201 tool use submodes, of which only 81 could be classified as tooling, and the majority of the tool use examples across species were poorly supported by evidence. Furthermore, tooling appears to be phylogenetically less widespread than tool use, with the greatest variability found in the primate order. However, in order to confirm these findings and to understand the evolution and neurocognitive mechanisms of tooling, more systematic research will be required in the future, particularly with currently underrepresented taxa.

中文翻译：

---

扩展工具理论的范围：神经认知和系统发育的观点

工具使用研究缺乏一致的理论框架。有大量的工具使用定义，而最普遍的定义是如此包容，以至于属于它们的行为可以说没有太多共同点。轶事的盛行加剧了这种情况，这些轶事在文献中发挥了不应有的作用。为了为研究提供更严格的基础并促进我们对工具使用与认知之间相互关系的理解，我们建议采用 Fragaszy 和 Mangalam (2018) 的工具框架，其特点是创建一个身体加-管理工具和表面之间的机械接口的对象系统。工具仅限于比工具使用更窄的行为套件，这可能有助于其神经认知调查。确实，文献中的证据表明，工具具有独特的神经认知基础，其他通常被归类为工具使用的活动所不具备，至少在灵长类动物中是这样。为了了解以往研究中刀具发生的程度，我们系统地调查了 Shumaker 等人的综合刀具使用目录。（2011）。我们确定了 201 种工具使用子模式，其中只有 81 种可以归类为工具，并且大多数跨物种的工具使用示例都缺乏证据支持。此外，工具似乎在系统发育上不如工具使用广泛，在灵长类动物中发现的变异性最大。然而，为了证实这些发现并了解工具的进化和神经认知机制，未来将需要更系统的研究，