36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      New insights into differences in brain organization between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans

      1 , 2 , 3 , 1
      Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
      The Royal Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Previous research has identified morphological differences between the brains of Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans (AMHs). However, studies using endocasts or the cranium itself are limited to investigating external surface features and the overall size and shape of the brain. A complementary approach uses comparative primate data to estimate the size of internal brain areas. Previous attempts to do this have generally assumed that identical total brain volumes imply identical internal organization. Here, we argue that, in the case of Neanderthals and AMHs, differences in the size of the body and visual system imply differences in organization between the same-sized brains of these two taxa. We show that Neanderthals had significantly larger visual systems than contemporary AMHs (indexed by orbital volume) and that when this, along with their greater body mass, is taken into account, Neanderthals have significantly smaller adjusted endocranial capacities than contemporary AMHs. We discuss possible implications of differing brain organization in terms of social cognition, and consider these in the context of differing abilities to cope with fluctuating resources and cultural maintenance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior.

            The origins of modern human behavior are marked by increased symbolic and technological complexity in the archaeological record. In western Eurasia this transition, the Upper Paleolithic, occurred about 45,000 years ago, but many of its features appear transiently in southern Africa about 45,000 years earlier. We show that demography is a major determinant in the maintenance of cultural complexity and that variation in regional subpopulation density and/or migratory activity results in spatial structuring of cultural skill accumulation. Genetic estimates of regional population size over time show that densities in early Upper Paleolithic Europe were similar to those in sub-Saharan Africa when modern behavior first appeared. Demographic factors can thus explain geographic variation in the timing of the first appearance of modern behavior without invoking increased cognitive capacity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting.

              Many investigators use the reduced major axis (RMA) instead of ordinary least squares (OLS) to define a line of best fit for a bivariate relationship when the variable represented on the X-axis is measured with error. OLS frequently is described as requiring the assumption that X is measured without error while RMA incorporates an assumption that there is error in X. Although an RMA fit actually involves a very specific pattern of error variance, investigators have prioritized the presence versus the absence of error rather than the pattern of error in selecting between the two methods. Another difference between RMA and OLS is that RMA is symmetric, meaning that a single line defines the bivariate relationship, regardless of which variable is X and which is Y, while OLS is asymmetric, so that the slope and resulting interpretation of the data are changed when the variables assigned to X and Y are reversed. The concept of error is reviewed and expanded from previous discussions, and it is argued that the symmetry-asymmetry issue should be the criterion by which investigators choose between RMA and OLS. This is a biological question about the relationship between variables. It is determined by the investigator, not dictated by the pattern of error in the data. If X is measured with error but OLS should be used because the biological question is asymmetric, there are several methods available for adjusting the OLS slope to reflect the bias due to error. RMA is being used in many analyses for which OLS would be more appropriate.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                Proc. R. Soc. B
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                May 07 2013
                May 07 2013
                May 07 2013
                May 07 2013
                : 280
                : 1758
                : 20130168
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK
                [2 ]Department of Anthropology, University of Oxford, 64 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PN, UK
                [3 ]Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
                Article
                10.1098/rspb.2013.0168
                3619466
                23486442
                dc68f2e3-1e01-413e-aca2-804d77d3fbcc
                © 2013
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article