Cited by 131Primate Behavior and EcologyMorphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Evolution of the Cerebellum in Primates: Differences in Relative Volume among Monkeys, Apes and Humans

Rilling, James K., Insel, Thomas R.·1998·Brain, Behavior and Evolution

Abstract

According to the ‘developmental constraint hypothesis’ of comparative mammalian neuroanatomy, brain structures enlarge predictably as the entire brain grows both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. In this study, brain and cerebellum volumes are measured from in vivo magnetic resonance scans of 44 primates from 11 haplorhine species. After controlling for overall brain volume, the cerebellum in both pongid and hylobatid apes is, on average, 45% larger than in monkeys. These results demonstrate that all primate brains are not similarly organized and that developmental constraints are not tight enough to preclude selection for increased cerebellar volume independent of selection on overall brain size.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000006575

Cites

12 of 12 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 cerebral cortex and the cerebellum have evolved together as their volume has increased in a proportional manner and form an anatomically closed connectivity known as the cerebro-cerebellar loop.

    “The cerebral cortex and the cerebellum have evolved together as their volume has increased in a proportional manner (Rilling and Insel, 1998), and form an anatomically closed connectivity known as the cerebro-cerebellar loop (Kelly and Strick, 2003; Bostan et al., 2013).”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Rilling and Insel, 1998

  • Several comparative studies suggest that cerebellar expansion, specifically involving the lateral cerebellum, was especially marked in apes.

    “Several comparative studies suggest that cerebellar expansion, specifically involving the lateral cerebellum, was especially marked in apes [69–71].”

    From Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum (2012) · cites this paper as [69]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rilling, J. K., & Insel, T. R.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Venue
Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
1998
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
308-314
ISSN
  • 0006-8977 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9743
OpenAlex
W2076997669
Cited by
131
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Behavior and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (RR-00 165, P51RR000165)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
cerebellum, primate brain evolution, cerebellar volume, brain volume, comparative neuroanatomy, monkeys, apes, human, pongids, hylobatids, haplorhines, brain size
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Cerebellum, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Primates, Hominidae, Pan paniscus

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