Archive for the 'Brain evolution' Category

Modern human brain shape

In a very comprehensive (and elegant!) article Simon Neubauer and colleagues have now analyzed brain shape variation along the modern human lineage. Since the description of the skull and endocast of Jebel Irhoud, it was clear that modern human brain form could have evolved after modern human origin. So, at that time (150,000-300,000 years ago) we had modern humans without modern brains. If Jebel Irhoud was Homo sapiens, then “early modern humans” lacked our characteristic globular brain shape, which is due to parietal lobe bulging and cerebellar form. Then, some later “archaic modern humans” seem to display a sort of intermediate morphology. Only recently (30,000-100,000 years ago) modern humans have evolved modern brains, at least in terms of general proportions and gross appearance. Of course, it’s difficult to say whether this transition was gradual or more abrupt. This article of the Max Planck team follows a previous one on the same specimens, and provides a very detailed analysis of many fossils that describe the evolution of our own species. Although the fossil record is not continuous because of the many chronological gaps, results suggest that a gradual change was likely. They also emphasize that a full-globularity can be found at the same time in which we find the archaeological evidence of behavioural modernity (arts, symbols, complex tools …). I remarked this same point many years ago, but the statement was not much appreciated because of the many uncertainties on the cultural “modern revolution” (more or less gradual, more or less discontinuous). Whatever the process behind, the appearance of a modern brain form (largely influenced by parietal districts associated with visuospatial functions, body cognition and visual imagery) matches the appearance of a modern behaviour (largely based on visual cognition and visuospatial managements, ranging from simulation and imaging to body-tool integration). Maybe it is but a coincidence, but nonetheless … they match.

Advertisements

Digital Endocasts

A new Springer book: Digital Endocasts: from skulls to brains. Chapter 1 (Holloway) is an introduction to physical casting. Chapter 2 (Ogihara et al.) deals with digital reconstructions of Neandertals and early modern humans’ endocasts. Chapter 3 (Kobayashi et al.) is about inferences on cortical subdivision from skull morphology. Chapter 4 (Beaudet and Gilissen) introduces paleoneurology on non-human primates, and Chapter 5 (Walsh and Knoll) is on birds and dinosaurs. Chapter 6 (Rangel de Lázaro et al.) reviews  craniovascular traits. Chapter 7 (Bruner) is on functional craniology and multivatiate statistics. Chapter 8 (Gómez-Robles et al.) concerns brain and landmarks, and Chapter 9 (Pereira-Pedro and Bruner) concerns endocasts and landmarks. Chapter 10 (Dupej et al.) is on endocranial surface comparisons. Chapter 11 (Kochiyama et al.) presents computed tools to infer brain morphology in fossil species. Chapter 12 (Neubauer and Gunz) deals with brain ontogeny and phylogeny. Chapter 13 (Bruner et al.) is on an application of network analysis to brain parcellation and cortical spatial contiguity. Then, there are chapters dedicated to the evolution of the frontal lobes (Chapter 14 – Parks and Smaers), of the parietal lobes (Chapter 15 – Bruner et al.), of the temporal lobes (Chapter 16 – Bryant and Preuss), of the occipital lobes (Chapter 17 – Todorov and de Sousa) and of the cerebellum (Chapter 18 – Tanabe et al.). The aim of the book is to provide a comprehensive perspective on issues associated with endocasts and brain evolution, and to promote a general overview of current methods in paleoneurology. The book has been published within the series “Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans“. Here on the Springer webpage.

Language and fossils

This week I have published an opinion paper on language and paleoneurology, in a volume of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience dedicated to language, skulls, and brains. I review the fossil evidence on language, suggesting that most of such evidence concerns brain areas that are influenced by cranial structural constraints, or is based on speculations associated with individual bone remains. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no consistent evidence on language evolution when you deal with fossil anatomy. Ralph Holloway already stressed this point before, but it seems that most books and articles introducing this topic simply keep on stating the opposite, following a mantra (usually void of citations) according to which fossils must clearly reveal the cerebral (usually frontal) changes behind language evolution. The lack of scientific evidence in this context does not mean that there is no association between language and brain evolutionary changes in hominids, but just that fossils can provide only a very incomplete (and insufficient) view of this process. Firm statements, scientifically speaking, should be avoided, and relegated to storytelling and science marketing.

The dorsal and medial parietal areas, probably larger in Neanderthals and even more derived in modern humans, are not generally considered when discussing language processes, and most of the debate has been centred on frontal lobe functions. Nonetheless, the parietal areas are crucial for hand coordination and manipulative abilities, both factors that have always been regarded as influential in language evolution. Also, recent evidence suggests that language has an important embodied component: language coding passes through body experience and simulation, something which is profoundly associated with the functions of the deep parietal folds. Therefore, we should consider whether changes in the whole fronto-parietal system may have triggered or facilitated language in the human genus. The paper is open access.

Evolution of Nervous Systems

evolution-of-the-nervous-systems-2ed

Second Edition of this outstanding reference in neuroscience and evolution edited by Jon H. Kaas, with four volumes dedicated to vertebrates, mammals, primates, and humans. Here a presentation of the contents, and a chapter on paleoneurology.

Brains and teeth

gomez-robles-et-al-pnas2017In anthropology it is commonly accepted that the evolution of larger brains was associated with the reduction of posterior teeth. Factors ranging from diet to cognitive ability have been used to explain this inverse correlation between cerebral complexity and masticatory structures. Aida Gómez-Robles and colleagues have analyzed brain and teeth changes using a multiple-variance Brownian motion approach, providing evidence against a brain-teeth phylogenetic association. Brain shape was analyzed by using eight linear variables as measured on endocasts. Teeth shape was analyzed through geometric morphometrics. The study found that endocranial proportions and dental geometry are largely characterized by similar rates of variation, which are indicative of a neutral and non-directional pattern of evolution. Brain size and tooth size show different rates of change throughout the phylogenetic tree, and the hypothesis of a reciprocal and inverse correlation is not supported. This seems to suggest independent factors at environmental and/or genetic level. Two characters show faster rates of change in specific lineages, and are probably associated with specific selective and adaptive processes: brain size in early Homo and brain globularity in Homo sapiens. The first result suggests that brain evolution in the genus Homo is strongly based on size increase rather than on changes of specific cortical proportions. However, caution is needed in this sense: the study is based on simple linear metrics such as arcs and chords, and reflects only the external appearance of endocranial anatomy. Despite these limitations, this result is consistent with other kinds of evidence. The second result reflects an exception to this size-only pattern of change: the globular brain shape in modern humans. Parietal lobe variations are again an issue.

Integrated paleoneurology

Zollikofer et al 2016Together with the recent article on modern vs Neandertal endocranial ontogeny, the team coordinated by Christoph Zollikofer has now published also a large and comprehensive study on endocranial ontogeny in humans and apes. The paper focuses on a specific question: to what extent endocranial differences are due to brain differences, and to what extent they are due to cranial constraints? Definitely, this is a key-paper in paleoneurology. They considered the integration between and within the main cranial districts to evaluate the influence on brain shape of two major cranial effects: spatial packing and facial orientation. Their analyses suggest that endocranial differences between humans and apes, as well as differences among apes, are the result of all those factors, the cerebral and the cranial ones. Therefore, the endocranial form is due to a complex admixture of specific brain differences (already present at birth) and cranial constraints. Comparisons among endocranial ontogenetic patterns of living hominoids, among adult fossil specimens, and among different neuroanatomical aspects of living species, can give different results, suggesting that the relationships between anatomical, morphological, and cytological elements is far from being understood. In my opinion, a limit of many shape analyses in general concerns the use of surface semi-landmarks to analyze brain geometry. Surface landmarks are necessary because of the lack of good anatomical references on the endocasts. Unfortunately, they can’t take into account the contribution of distinct cerebral areas, and as a consequence they consider brain morphology as a single homogeneous surface. The identification of boundaries or distinct and independent elements within this surface might seriously influence the multivariate output. I am particularly interested in the analysis of the parietal districts. When using surface landmarks the analysis of the parietal surface may give different (and sometimes contrasting) results. Hence, we may wonder whether the observed parietal variations are the result of brain differences (cortical expansion/reduction) or of geometry (bulging and flexion). Nonetheless, previous morphological studies based on cortical landmarks suggest that modern humans show an actual (absolute and relative) increase not only of the parietal “surface”, but also and specifically of the parietal “lobe”, when compared with extinct hominids or with living chimps. The localization of anatomical boundaries on endocasts may be difficult, although those results have been replicated on different samples. The identification of anatomical landmarks in living species is, in contrast, definitely more reliable. Therefore, whatever the result of a global surface analysis of the whole endocranium, we should not forget that comparisons of specific areas are suggesting a differential contribution of distinct brain components.

Ontogenetic dilemma

Ponce de Leon et al 2016

Marcia Ponce de León and colleagues have published a comprehensive shape analysis on modern human and Neandertal early ontogenetic endocranial changes, as Philipp Gunz and his team did back in 2010. Interestingly, results are different. The previous study from the Max Planck Institute concluded that only modern humans have a species-specific postnatal stage in which the braincase bulges (globularization stage). In contrast, this new analysis, coordinated by Christoph Zollikofer, suggests that after birth Neandertals and modern humans share a similar pattern of endocranial shape change. In this case, any endocranial difference between these two species must occur before birth. The discrepancy between the two studies may be due to differences in the samples (which, recognizing the good samples used in these analyses, would reveal a problematic instability of most paleoanthropological studies) or to differences in the reconstructions of the specimens (which, recognizing the good experience of both teams, would reveal a problematic instability of most paleoanthropological studies). Nonetheless, we must also take into account that both articles rely on very complex statistical and algebraic passages, and methodological biases should not be ruled out. After all, also paleontology deals with the same limits of any science: we do not work with skulls or brains, but with models made of variables and parameters. Models that work well in some cases, and do a worse job in some others, depending on the questions involved. In this new study, the fact that endocranial shape differences between Neandertals and modern humans are prenatal is used to state that there are no cognitive differences between the two species. Of course, cognition is more than shape, so the relationship between the timing of these changes (before or after birth) and the statement on cognition is not particularly straight. Inferences on cognition should be made on multiple evidence, dealing with something that goes well beyond a surface analysis.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

RSS Brain News

RSS Cognitive archaeology

  • Summer 2018 Courses at The Center For Cognitive Archaeology
    Courses offered for the Summer 2018 Semester (June-August) The Center for Cognitive Archaeology (CCA) provides both undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to study the evolutionary development of cognition in humans and other primates. The CCA offers 12 different online courses, which are taught by professors from the University of Colorado, Col […]

RSS The Skull Box

  • A History of Surgery
    The Chirurgeon’s Apprentice is a popular blog on the website of medical historian Dr Lindsey Fitzharris who received her doctorate from University of Oxford in medical, technology and science history. Dr Fitzharris discusses the apt naming of the blog with the word ‘chirurgeon‘ the first historical reference to a practitioner of surgery. The website illumina […]

RSS Anthropology

RSS Human Evolution

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Neurophilosophy

  • Researchers develop non-invasive deep brain stimulation method
    Researchers at MIT have developed a new method of electrically stimulating deep brain tissues without opening the skullSince 1997, more than 100,000 Parkinson’s Disease patients have been treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical technique that involves the implantation of ultra-thin wire electrodes. The implanted device, sometimes referred to as […]

Disclaimer

This blog publishes texts and comments of the author, which can not be referred to institutions or contexts outside of the blog itself. The published material may be partly derived or reported from the Web, and therefore evaluated in the public domain. If some content violates copyright or if it is considered inappropriate, please contact me, to promptly remove it. On the other hand, please cite this source whenever using images or texts from this website.
Advertisements