Hand-eye coordination and visuospatial integration are among the numerous skills that define human beings. These two properties are the result of a shared evolution of the visual and tactile senses, and are directly related to manipulation. The use of tools, for example, requires the combination of these two characteristics. From an evolutionary point of view, the relationship between manipulation, hand anatomy and tools has mainly been studied. However, the other source of information, vision, has not been explored yet. Therefore, the main aim of this doctoral thesis is to find out visuospatial changes in the archaeological record through the analysis of the visual behaviour in relation to Lower Palaeolithic stone tools.
Although cognitive abilities cannot be studied directly, the analysis of eye movements provides indirect evidence of the amount of visuospatial attention allocated to exploring a given scene. Likewise, the archaeological record can provide information on the visuospatial relationship between the individual and the technology. Therefore, in this research work, a series of visual attention studies are conducted in different scanning conditions, using different eye-tracking devices to analyse eye movements and visual attention. The exploration situations analysed include passive observation of photographs of tools, observation of tools in peripersonal space, manipulation and tactile exploration of tools, and finally, tool-making. For this purpose, a total of 215 participants have collaborated in six experimental studies, carried out at the National Centre for Research on Human Evolution (CENIEH, Burgos) and the University of Lincoln (UK). Apart from two studies focused on experience with lithic technology, all experimental processes are carried out on individuals with no archaeological knowledge in order to avoid biases that influence primary visual exploration. Experimental studies used examples of the first stone tool technologies, like choppers and handaxes.
The different studies of visual perception reveal that attention is not affected by the most prominent properties of the tools, instead, the tools show a characteristic pattern of observation. Furthermore, the distribution of visuospatial attention is similar in all the scanning states analysed. Stone tools trigger the same visual response regardless of the shown mode (image or replica) or location (peripersonal or personal space). In this sense, the functional areas of the tools are more observed than those areas associated with manipulation, despite the widely known tendency to observe the centre of the artefacts. The results obtained suggest that visual attention is affected by the processing of affordances or action possibilities of the tools. Despite the fact that the gaze is generally directed to the functional regions of prehistoric tools, there are differences between the examples of the technological modes analysed. Choppers are more observed in the function-associated zones, while handaxes need more exploration in the manipulative regions. We propose that the differences in the distribution of visuospatial attention according to the technological element observed correspond to the predominance of one type of affordance over another. Choppers require more executive processing while handaxes require more reflection on grasping affordances. In addition, functional areas attract a higher degree of visuospatial attention in participants with lithic industry knowledge. This behaviour is a consequence of previous experience about potential uses and modes of manipulation.
Another aspect to consider concerns the influence of the morphology of the tool on its perception. From the quantification of the shape, as well as other structural and functional variables, it has been found that the characteristics that most affect exploration are the size, weight and morphology of the tool base. However, shape does not have the same influence on choppers and handaxes. We suggest that the simpler morphology of choppers allows the focus to be on the functional area of the tool, as a complex manipulation strategy is not necessary. In this case, the scanning pattern of the worked pebbles is exclusively affected by weight. On the other hand, the shape and size of the handaxes directly influence the visual scanning pattern. Small and elongated handaxes allow for easier handling of the tool. Therefore, we propose that functional affordances condition the first tools, while the affordances associated with manipulation become more important as potential uses and morphological complexity increase. Finally, the role of vision during lithic tool manufacture is considered. Preliminary results indicate that visual behaviour is different depending on the tool manufactured.
This research work constitutes the first study on the visual response triggered by lithic technology. Several conclusions can be considered on the basis of the studies developed. At the methodological level, eye tracking is established as a useful technology to study one of the main human cognitive activities, visual perception. On the other hand, the evidence found can be related to different visuospatial processing, and therefore, to different cognitive capacities required according to the lithic technology explored.