Development of the Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q): an instrument to assess the individual propensity to use smart tools.

Humans have developed a prolonged and special relationship with their tools, which themselves exhibit the propensity to become ever more intelligent across the years. A 'smart tool' is defined as to representing any entity, machine, or device that can complete an informational, mechanical, or electronic work. This work explains the development of the Smart Tool Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q), which is designed to measure an individual's propensity to use smart tools. Data collection was designed to (1) identify the psychological dimensions underlying smart tool use (2) establish the questionnaire's reliability (3) validity, (4) propose a normalisation, and (5) provide an English translation of the French original. The work therefore implements a reliable and valid questionnaire, sensitive to inter-individual differences regarding the propensity to use smart tools. Statistical analysis reveals that the individual self-reported propensity for smart tool use rests on three factors (1) utilitarian use, (2) hedonic and social use, and (3) proneness to delegate. From a theoretical perspective, this individual propensity to use smart tools might be considered key to our species development. In practical terms, measuring an individual's propensity to use smart tools can be of considerable benefit to the design of future smart tools in both professional and non-professional settings. Practitioner summary: The STP-Q, a self-reported measure of an individual's propensity to use smart tools, was developed. STP-Q offers practitioners a measure of individual propensity to use smart tools along three dimensions: utilitarian use, hedonic and social use, and proneness to task delegate. Individual results can easily be interpreted from normalizations that STP-Q provides. Abbreviations: CFI: comparative fit index; GFI: goodness of fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; ISO: International Standardization Organization; IRB: institutional review board of the university of central Florida; IT: information technology; MATB: multi-attribute task battery; NMP-Q: no more phone phobia; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; STP-Q: smart tools proneness questionnaire; TAM: technology acceptance model; TRI: technology readiness index; UTAUT: unified theory of acceptance and use of technology; WAIS IV: Wechsler adult intelligence scale.

Gestural apraxia.

Gestural apraxia was first described in 1905 by Hugo Karl Liepmann. While his description is still used, the actual terms are often confusing. The cognitive approach using models proposes thinking of the condition in terms of production and conceptual knowledge. The underlying cognitive processes are still being debated, as are also the optimal ways to assess them. Several neuroimaging studies have revealed the involvement of a left-lateralized frontoparietal network, with preferential activation of the superior parietal lobe, intraparietal sulcus and inferior parietal cortex. The presence of apraxia after a stroke is prevalent, and the incidence is sufficient to propose rehabilitation.

Utilization behavior: clinical and theoretical approaches.

Lhermitte (1983) coined the term "utilization behavior" (UB) to define a neurobehavioral syndrome in which the visuo-tactile presentation of objects compels patients to grasp and use them, despite the fact that they have not been instructed to do so. The author suggested that UB was the consequence of frontal lobe damage. Thereafter, Shallice, Burgess, Schon, and Baxter (1989) questioned Lhermitte's (1983) procedure for eliciting UB, putting forward an alternative research methodology that led to differentiate two forms of UB: "induced" and "incidental." To date, there has been no direct comparison between these two procedures, nor have any other methodologies been used to explore this clinical sign, which is related to fundamental concepts such as free will and human autonomy. We investigated UB in 70 subjects (25 patients with frontal lobe lesions, 10 patients with posterior brain damage and 35 control subjects) using the methodologies of Lhermitte (1983) and Shallice et al. (1989), as well as an original "verbal generation" procedure. Our results show that the verbal generation procedure reveals UB efficiently and that elicitation of this sign appears to be directly linked to the content of the task. We discuss the interpretation of UB in terms of an executive control deficit.