CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Marine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research

Phylogenetic origins of biological cognition: convergent patterns in the early evolution of learning

Open access
van Duijn, Marc·2017·Interface Focus
DOI 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0158PMC PMC5413897
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Various forms of elementary learning have recently been discovered in organisms lacking a nervous system, such as protists, fungi and plants. This finding has fundamental implications for how we view the role of convergent evolution in biological cognition. In this article, I first review the evidence for basic forms of learning in aneural organisms, focusing particularly on habituation and classical conditioning and considering the plausibility for convergent evolution of these capacities. Next, I examine the possible role of convergent evolution regarding these basic learning abilities during the early evolution of nervous systems. The evolution of nervous systems set the stage for at least two major events relevant to convergent evolution that are central to biological cognition: (i) nervous systems evolved, perhaps more than once, because of strong selection pressures for sustaining sensorimotor strategies in increasingly larger multicellular organisms and (ii) associative learning was a subsequent adaptation that evolved multiple times within the neuralia. Although convergent evolution of basic forms of learning among distantly related organisms such as protists, plants and neuralia is highly plausible, more research is needed to verify whether these forms of learning within the neuralia arose through convergent or parallel evolution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0158

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Muscles first emerged at the Cambrian explosion, allowing for faster and more vigorous movement, including larger organisms.

    “Along with many other physical and physiological innovations, muscles first emerged at this time, allowing for faster and more vigorous movement, including larger organisms [8,9].”

    From The social origins of consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3.1, “Size constraints on sensorimotor coordination” (page not available), links muscle-based locomotion to coordinated movement in larger organisms. It does not say muscles first emerged during the Cambrian explosion or establish that they made movement faster or more vigorous; Section 3 instead places the earliest nervous systems, whose origins the paper says were closely coupled with muscle tissue, as early as the Ediacaran. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Nielsen C. 2011 Neuralia. In Animal evolution (ed. C Nielsen), pp. 42 -44. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  2. Applewhite PB. 1975 Learning in bacteria, fungi and plants. In Invertebrate learning. Cephalopods and echinoderms, vol. 3 (eds WC Corning, JA Dyal, AOD Willows), pp. 179-186. New York, NY: Plenum.
  3. Varela F, Thompson E, Rosch E. 1991 The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
van Duijn, M.
ORCID
van Duijn, Marc
Venue
Interface Focus
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2017-01-06
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
20160158-20160158
ISSN
  • 2042-8898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-8901
DOI
10.1098/rsfs.2016.0158
PMC
PMC5413897
OpenAlex
W2605436073
Cited by
60
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Interface Focus (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Keywords
biological cognition, convergent evolution, learning, protists, fungi, plants, habituation, classical conditioning, associative learning, sensorimotor strategies, parallel evolution

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