Primate encephalization
Abstract
Encephalization is a concept that implies an increase in brain or neocortex size relative to body size, size of lower brain areas, and/or evolutionary time. Here, I review 26 large-scale comparative studies that provide robust evidence for five lifestyle correlates of encephalization (group living, a large home range, a high-quality diet, a strong reliance on vision, arboreal and forest dwelling), six cognitive correlates (better performance in captive tests, more tactical deception, innovation, tool use, social learning, all subsumed in part by general intelligence), one life history correlate (a longer lifespan), two evolutionary correlates (a high rate of change in microcephaly genes, an increase in brain size over macroevolutionary time), as well as three trade-offs (a slower juvenile development, a higher metabolic rate, sexually selected dimorphism). Of the 26 different encephalization measures used in these studies, corrected neocortex size, either with a ratio or a residual, is the most popular structural correlate of the functional variables, while residual brain size is the measure associated with the greatest number of them. Controversies remain on corrected or absolute measures of neural structure size, concerted versus mosaic evolution of brain parts and specialized versus domain-general brain structures and cognitive processes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The finding that mosaic changes contribute more to explaining neural system diversity across species than changes in relative brain size confirms that the traditional focus on relative brain size significantly underestimates the contribution of different neural pathways to primate neural system diversity.
“The finding that mosaic changes contribute more to explaining neural system diversity across species than changes in relative brain size confirms that the traditional focus on relative brain size [2,41–43] significantly underestimates the contribution of different neural pathways to primate neural system diversity.”
From Brain reorganization, not relative brain size, primarily characterizes anthropoid brain evolution (2013) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 110 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Lefebvre, L.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lefebvre, Louis
- ORCID
- Lefebvre, Louis
- Venue
- Progress in Brain Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 195
- Pages
- 393-412
- ISSN
- 0079-6123 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2746772860
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 14.82
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Progress in brain research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- encephalization, primate brain evolution, group living, home range size, diet quality, arboreality, forest dwellings, cognitive ability, tool use, social learning, innovation, deception, lifespan, juvenile development, metabolic rate, sexual dimorphism, domain-general cognition
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Biological Evolution, Humans, Organ Size, Primates, Body Size
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review