CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 890Primate Behavior and EcologyCognitive Abilities and TestingEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Evolution of the brain and intelligence

ROTH, G, DICKE, U·2005·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intelligence has evolved many times independently among vertebrates. Primates, elephants and cetaceans are assumed to be more intelligent than 'lower' mammals, the great apes and humans more than monkeys, and humans more than the great apes. Brain properties assumed to be relevant for intelligence are the (absolute or relative) size of the brain, cortex, prefrontal cortex and degree of encephalization. However, factors that correlate better with intelligence are the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity, as the basis for information-processing capacity. Humans have more cortical neurons than other mammals, although only marginally more than whales and elephants. The outstanding intelligence of humans appears to result from a combination and enhancement of properties found in non-human primates, such as theory of mind, imitation and language, rather than from 'unique' properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Roth and Dicke concluded that across species the factors correlating better with intelligence are the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity.

    “led two authors to conclude that the “factors that correlate better with intelligence (across species) are the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity, as the basis for information processing” (Roth and Dicke, 2005).”

    From The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain (2009) · cites this paper as Roth and Dicke, 2005

  • According to one estimate, the false killer whale and the African elephant would have about 11 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex, fewer than the 11.5 billion estimated for the human cerebral cortex, though only marginally so.

    “According to one estimate, the false killer whale and the African elephant would have about 11 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex, despite their large size – and fewer neurons than the 11.5 billion estimated by the same method for the human cerebral cortex, though only marginally so (Roth and Dicke, 2005).”

    From The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain (2009) · cites this paper as Roth and Dicke, 2005

  • Quantitative changes in neuronal composition could be a main driving force that, through exponential combination of processing units and computational abilities, leads to events that look like jumps in brain and intelligence evolution.

    “Quantitative changes in the neuronal composition of the brain could therefore be a main driving force that, through the exponential combination of processing units, and therefore of computational abilities, leads to events that may look like “jumps” in the evolution of brains and intelligence (Roth and Dicke, 2005).”

    From The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain (2009) · cites this paper as Roth and Dicke, 2005

  • With limited comparable experimental data on how cognition varies across species, previous research has largely relied on proxies for cognition, such as brain size, or meta-analyses when testing hypotheses about cognitive evolution.

    “With limited comparable experimental data on how cognition varies across species, previous research has largely relied on proxies for cognition (e.g., brain size) or metaanalyses when testing hypotheses about cognitive evolution (76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81)(82)(83)(84)(85)(86)(87)(88)(89)(90)(91)(92).”

    From The evolution of self-control. (2014) · cites this paper as [78]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
ROTH, G., & DICKE, U.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
Corresponding author
ROTH, G
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
250-257
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005
OpenAlex
W2153686100
Cited by
890
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 47
FWCI
28.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
evolution of intelligence, brain evolution, encephalization, brain size, prefrontal cortex, cortical neurons, conduction velocity, information processing capacity, comparative cognition, primates, elephants, cetaceans, theory of mind, imitation, language, great apes
MeSH terms
Anatomy, Comparative, Animals, Body Weight, Brain, Biological Evolution, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Organ Size, Psychological Theory, Regression Analysis

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