@article {197,
	title = {Tool morphology constrains the effects of tool use on body representations.},
	journal = {J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform},
	volume = {40},
	year = {2014},
	month = {2014 Dec},
	pages = {2143-53},
	abstract = {<p>What factors constrain whether tool use modulates the user{\textquoteright}s body representations? To date, studies on representational plasticity following tool use have primarily focused on the act of using the tool. Here, we investigated whether the tool{\textquoteright}s morphology also serves to constrain plasticity. In 2 experiments, we varied whether the tool was morphologically similar to a target body part (Experiment 1, hand; Experiment 2, arm). Participants judged the tactile distance between pairs of points applied to their tool-using target body surface and forehead (control surface) before and after tool use. We applied touch in 2 orientations, allowing us to quantify how tool use modulates the representation{\textquoteright}s shape. Significant representational plasticity in hand shape (increase in width, decrease in length) was found when the tool was morphologically similar to a hand (Experiment 1A), but not when the tool was arm-shaped (Experiment 1B). Conversely, significant representational plasticity was found on the arm when the tool was arm-shaped (Experiment 2B), but not when hand-shaped (Experiment 2A). Taken together, our results indicate that morphological similarity between the tool and the effector constrains tool-induced representational plasticity. The embodiment of tools may thus depend on a match-to-template process between tool morphology and representation of the body.</p>
},
	keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Body Image, Discrimination (Psychology), Distance Perception, Female, Form Perception, Humans, Judgment, Male, Size Perception, Tool Use Behavior, Touch Perception, Young Adult},
	issn = {1939-1277},
	doi = {10.1037/a0037777},
	author = {Miller, Luke E and Longo, Matthew R and Saygin, Ayse P}
}
