Mechanical Problem-Solving Strategies in @entity195 and XXXX .

@entity1 @entity75 @entity195 @entity4943 @entity1742
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to explore whether the tool-use disorders observed in @entity195 ( @entity195 ) and @entity4943 ( @entity4943 ) are of the same nature as those observed in @entity75 ( @entity75 ) @entity1 . Recent evidence indicates that @entity75 @entity1 with @entity1742 of tool use encounter difficulties in solving mechanical problems, characterized by the absence of specific strategies. This pattern may show the presence of impaired mechanical knowledge, critical for both familiar and novel tool use. So, we explored the strategies followed by @entity195 and @entity4943 @entity1 in mechanical problem-solving tasks in order to determine whether mechanical knowledge is also impaired in these @entity1 . METHOD: We used a mechanical problem-solving task in both choice (i.e., several tools were proposed) and no-choice (i.e., only 1 tool was proposed) conditions. We analyzed quantitative data and strategy profiles. RESULTS: @entity195 @entity1 but not @entity4943 @entity1 met difficulties in solving mechanical problem-solving tasks. However, the key finding is that @entity195 @entity1 , despite their difficulties, showed strategy profiles that are similar to that of @entity4943 @entity1 or controls. Moreover, @entity195 @entity1 exhibited a strategy profile distinct from the one previously observed in @entity75 @entity1 . CONCLUSIONS: Those observations lead us to consider that difficulties met by @entity195 @entity1 to solve mechanical problems or even to use familiar tools may not be caused by mechanical knowledge impairment per se. In broad terms, what we call @entity1742 of tool use in @entity195 is certainly not the same as @entity1742 of tool use observed in @entity75 @entity1 . (PsycINFO Database Record
