Are bigger brains better?
Open accessAbstract
Attempts to relate brain size to behaviour and cognition have rarely integrated information from insects with that from vertebrates. Many insects, however, demonstrate that highly differentiated motor repertoires, extensive social structures and cognition are possible with very small brains, emphasising that we need to understand the neural circuits, not just the size of brain regions, which underlie these feats. Neural network analyses show that cognitive features found in insects, such as numerosity, attention and categorisation-like processes, may require only very limited neuron numbers. Thus, brain size may have less of a relationship with behavioural repertoire and cognitive capacity than generally assumed, prompting the question of what large brains are for. Larger brains are, at least partly, a consequence of larger neurons that are necessary in large animals due to basic biophysical constraints. They also contain greater replication of neuronal circuits, adding precision to sensory processes, detail to perception, more parallel processing and enlarged storage capacity. Yet, these advantages are unlikely to produce the qualitative shifts in behaviour that are often assumed to accompany increased brain size. Instead, modularity and interconnectivity may be more important.
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?
Given the extremely high costs of building and maintaining nervous systems, neutral evolutionary processes are arguably less prevalent during nervous system evolution than for example in genome evolution.
“Given the extremely high costs of building and maintaining nervous systems [10–12], neutral evolutionary processes are arguably less prevalent during nervous system evolution than for example in genome evolution [13].”
From Origin and early evolution of neural circuits for the control of ciliary locomotion (2011) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 158 · Cited by 598
- Authors
- Chittka, L., & Niven, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- ORCID
- Niven, Jeremy
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- R995-R1008
- ISSN
- 0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982009673
- Cited by
- 598
- References
- 158
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 39
- FWCI
- 2.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 1390 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Current Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- brain size, brain-behavior relationship, insect cognition, vertebrate cognition, neural circuits, neuron number, biophysical constraints, interconnectedness, parallel computing, memory capacity, social behavior, motor repertoire, attention, categorization
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bees, Behavior, Animal, Brain, Cognition, Drosophila melanogaster, Humans, Insecta, Nerve Net, Organ Size, Vertebrates
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