Cited by 116Primate Behavior and EcologyCognitive Abilities and TestingMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Species differences in executive function correlate with hippocampus volume and neocortex ratio across nonhuman primates.

Shultz, Susanne, Dunbar, R. I. M.·2010·Journal of Comparative Psychology

Abstract

A persistent debate in behavioral research is whether brain size or architecture relates to cognitive performance. A growing body of evidence has demonstrated correlations between brain size and ecological and behavioral tasks. These studies are premised on a causal link between brain size and cognitive function, although this association has little empirical backing. We show, for a set of 46 species from 17 primate genera, that competence on a series of eight executive function cognitive tasks both correlate across tasks and with brain size and architecture across species. Our model selection approach showed that, although several measures of brain component volumes are significantly associated with performance, hippocampus size is the best predictor of overall performance. The best performing model also includes total brain size and relative neocortex size. Additionally, absolute measures are much more predictive of performance than relative measures of brain and brain component size. These results are consistent with the hippocampus' role in learning, and the executive brain (neocortex) being important for problem solving and consolidation. Our findings challenge and extend those of previous analyses by clarifying the relationship between overall brain size and specific regional volumes. They also suggest that commonly used indices of encephalization, such as residuals of brain volume regressed on body size, may confound rather than clarify matters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018894

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • 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 [76]

  • Phylogenetic comparative methods have been applied to the study of brain evolution but have yet to be applied to systematic investigations of cognitive variation between species as measured through behavioral assays, with few exceptions.

    “While phylogenetic comparative methods have been applied to the study of brain evolution (e.g., Barton 1998; Dunbar 1998b; Deaner et al. 2000, 2007; Lindenfors et al. 2007; Isler and van Schaik 2009), with few exceptions (e.g., Amici et al. 2008; Shultz and Dunbar 2010), they have yet to be applied to systematic investigations of cognitive variation between species as measured through behavioral”

    From How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology (2012) · cites this paper as Shultz and Dunbar 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shultz, S., & Dunbar, R. I. M.
Affiliations
British Academy (GB)
Venue
Journal of Comparative Psychology
Published
2010-08
Volume
124
Issue
3
Pages
252-260
ISSN
  • 0093-4127 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2087
  • 0735-7036
OpenAlex
W2056398561
Cited by
116
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
13.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of comparative psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • British Academy Centenary Research Project
  • Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
executive function, hippocampal volume, neocortex, brain size, brain architecture, non-human primates, cognitive performance, encephalization, comparative cognition, problem solving
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Mapping, Hippocampus, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Organ Size, Phylogeny, Primates, Species Specificity, Statistics as Topic, Neocortex, Executive Function

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