Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans
Open accessIntegrity 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?
Braincase shape depends on a complex interplay between cranial bone growth, facial size, and the tempo and mode of neurodevelopment.
“From the perspective of ontogeny, braincase shape depends on a complex interplay between cranial bone growth, facial size, and the tempo and mode of neurodevelopment [1, 4, 12–14].”
From Neandertal Introgression Sheds Light on Modern Human Endocranial Globularity (2019) · cites this paper as [12]
In present-day humans, globularity emerges during perinatal development in a period when the rapidly expanding brain is the main driver of braincase shape.
“In present-day humans, globularity emerges during perinatal development [12, 13] in a period when the rapidly expanding brain is the main driver of braincase shape.”
From Neandertal Introgression Sheds Light on Modern Human Endocranial Globularity (2019) · cites this paper as [12]
Early differences in infant brain growth between humans and Neanderthals could have rendered our maturational profile distinct during limited developmental periods and within specific brain regions, imposing different metabolic requirements.
“early differences in infant brain growth between humans and Neanderthals9,10 could have rendered our maturational profile distinct during limited developmental periods and within specific brain regions, imposing different metabolic requirements163.”
From A catalog of single nucleotide changes distinguishing modern humans from archaic hominins (2019) · cites this paper as [10]
Divergent morphogenetic trajectories underlying shape differences, such as brain development and cranio-facial morphology, can exist within this broadly human growth pattern.
“Even so, divergent morphogenetic trajectories underlying shape differences, such as brain development (29)(30)(31) and cranio-facial morphology (32,33) can exist within this broadly human growth pattern.”
From The growth pattern of Neandertals, reconstructed from a juvenile skeleton from El Sidrón (Spain) (2017) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 304
- Authors
- Gunz, P., Neubauer, S., Maureille, B., & Hublin, J.-J.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Gunz, Philipp
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- R921-R922
- ISSN
- 0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2037627097
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 75.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Keywords
- Neanderthals, human, brain development, human evolution, cognitive differences
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Fossils, Humans, Organ Size, Skull, Hominidae
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
