Cited by 137Primate Behavior and EcologyCognitive Abilities and TestingEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Brains matter, bodies maybe not: the case for examining neuron numbers irrespective of body size

Herculano‐Houzel, Suzana·2011·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

It is usually considered a paradox that the human brain, although smaller than elephant and cetacean brains, is the most cognitively able. The concept that humans are more encephalized than all other mammals appeared in the 1970s as a solution to that paradox: humans have a brain that is much larger than expected from their body mass. Such an “excess brain mass” would provide increased cognitive abilities across species, thus explaining our cognitive superiority. However, behind the paradox lies the assumption that large mammalian brains are scaled‐up versions of smaller brains, always containing more neurons than smaller ones—an assumption that we have recently shown to be invalid. Here, it is proposed that the absolute number of neurons, irrespective of brain or body size, is a better predictor of cognitive ability—in which case, the cognitive superiority of humans would come as no paradox, surprise, or exception to evolutionary rules.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05976.x

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains, and concomitant cortical reorganization, was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution.

    “The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains-and concomitant cortical reorganization-was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution (77, 91, 100-106, 120).”

    From The evolution of self-control. (2014) · cites this paper as [104]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herculano‐Houzel, S.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Herculano‐Houzel, Suzana
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04
Volume
1225
Issue
1
Pages
191-199
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W1660063171
Cited by
137
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
neuron number, brain size, encephalization quotient, cognitive ability, comparative cognition, brain evolution
MeSH terms
Anatomy, Comparative, Animals, Brain, Cell Count, Cognition, Humans, Mammals, Neurons, Organ Size, Body Size

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