Cited by 175Primate Behavior and EcologyCognitive Abilities and TestingNeural dynamics and brain function

Neuronal factors determining high intelligence

Open access
Dicke, Ursula, Roth, Gerhard·2016·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Many attempts have been made to correlate degrees of both animal and human intelligence with brain properties. With respect to mammals, a much-discussed trait concerns absolute and relative brain size, either uncorrected or corrected for body size. However, the correlation of both with degrees of intelligence yields large inconsistencies, because although they are regarded as the most intelligent mammals, monkeys and apes, including humans, have neither the absolutely nor the relatively largest brains. The best fit between brain traits and degrees of intelligence among mammals is reached by a combination of the number of cortical neurons, neuron packing density, interneuronal distance and axonal conduction velocity—factors that determine general information processing capacity (IPC), as reflected by general intelligence. The highest IPC is found in humans, followed by the great apes, Old World and New World monkeys. The IPC of cetaceans and elephants is much lower because of a thin cortex, low neuron packing density and low axonal conduction velocity. By contrast, corvid and psittacid birds have very small and densely packed pallial neurons and relatively many neurons, which, despite very small brain volumes, might explain their high intelligence. The evolution of a syntactical and grammatical language in humans most probably has served as an additional intelligence amplifier, which may have happened in songbirds and psittacids in a convergent manner.

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/rstb.2015.0180

Cites

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?

  • Neural network parameters represent a computational analog to biological neural capacity, directly reflecting studies showing strong correlations between brain volume and total neuron count across species, humans, and mice brains.

    “Our neural network parameters represent a computational analog to biological neural capacity, directly reflecting the studies showing strong correlations between brain volume and total neuron count across species, humans, and mice brains (68–70).”

    From What if eye...? Computationally recreating vision evolution (2025) · cites this paper as [69]

    Section 4 (page unavailable) relates cortical volume and neuron density to cortical neuron counts, supporting a connection between size and neuron number. But it also gives cross-species examples in which larger brains have fewer cortical neurons. Section 3 mentions mice in a brain-to-body-size comparison, not a brain-volume–neuron-count correlation; the paper does not establish the claimed strong correlation across species, humans, and mice. (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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 70 · Cited by 175

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [54]54. Jarvis ED. 2009 Evolution. In Encyclopedia of neuroscience, vol. 2 (ed. LR Squire), pp. 209 -215. Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

Authors
Dicke, U., & Roth, G.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
Corresponding author
Dicke, Ursula
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2016-01-05
Volume
371
Issue
1685
Pages
20150180
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2178041736
Cited by
175
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
intelligence, brain size, brain-to-body size ratio, axonal conduction velocity, information processing capacity, comparative cognition, great apes, cetaceans, elephants, Corvidae, language evolution, brain evolution
MeSH terms
Animals, Central Nervous System, Biological Evolution, Humans, Intelligence

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