Cited by 288Primate Behavior and EcologyNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Coordinated scaling of cortical and cerebellar numbers of neurons

Open access
Herculano-Houzel·2010·Frontiers in Neuroanatomy

Abstract

While larger brains possess concertedly larger cerebral cortices and cerebella, the relative size of the cerebral cortex increases with brain size, but relative cerebellar size does not. In the absence of data on numbers of neurons in these structures, this discrepancy has been used to dispute the hypothesis that the cerebral cortex and cerebellum function and have evolved in concert and to support a trend towards neocorticalization in evolution. However, the rationale for interpreting changes in absolute and relative size of the cerebral cortex and cerebellum relies on the assumption that they reflect absolute and relative numbers of neurons in these structures across all species - an assumption that our recent studies have shown to be flawed. Here I show for the first time that the numbers of neurons in the cerebral cortex and cerebellum are directly correlated across 19 mammalian species of four different orders, including humans, and increase concertedly in a similar fashion both within and across the orders Eulipotyphla (Insectivora), Rodentia, Scandentia and Primata, such that on average a ratio of 3.6 neurons in the cerebellum to every neuron in the cerebral cortex is maintained across species. This coordinated scaling of cortical and cerebellar numbers of neurons provides direct evidence in favor of concerted function, scaling and evolution of these brain structures, and suggests that the common notion that equates cognitive advancement with neocortical expansion should be revisited to consider in its stead the coordinated scaling of neocortex and cerebellum as a functional ensemble.

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 · 10.3389/fnana.2010.00012

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The relationship between volume and neuron number or density varies between taxonomic groups and between brain structures.

    “Recent works suggest that the relationship between volume and neuron number or density varies between taxonomic groups and between brain structures [25,26].”

    From Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum (2012) · cites this paper as [26]

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: 8

  1. Brant S. V. Ortí G. (2002). Molecular phylogenetics of short-tailed shrews, Blarina (Insectivora: Soricidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22, 163– 173 10.1006/mpev.2001.1057 11820838 · DOI
  2. Fankhauser G. Vernon J. A. Frank W. H. Slack W. V. (1955). Effect of size and number of brain cells on learning in larvae of the salamander, Triturus viridescens. Science 122, 692– 693 10.1126/science.122.3172.692 13255909 · DOI
  3. Hofman M. A. (1985a). Size and shape of the cerebral cortex in mammals. I. The cortical surface. Brain Behav. Evol. 27, 28– 40 10.1159/000118718 3836731 · DOI
  4. Hofman M. A. (1988). Size and shape of the cerebral cortex in mammals. II. The cortical volume. Brain Behav. Evol. 32, 17– 26 10.1159/000116529 3056571 · DOI
  5. Jerison H. J. (2007). How can fossils tell us about the evolution of the neocortex? In Evolution of Nervous Systems: A Comprehensive Reference, Vol. 3, Kaas J, ed. (Elsevier, Oxford).
  6. Kozic D. Kostic V. S. (2001). Crossed cerebrocerebellar atrophy. Arch. Neurol. 58, 1929– 1930 10.1001/archneur.58.11.1929 11709005 · DOI
  7. Matano S. Baron G. Stephan H. Frahm H. D. (1985). Volume comparison in the cerebellar complex of primates. II. Cerebellar nuclei. Folia Primatol. 44, 182– 203 10.1159/000156212 4054756 · DOI
  8. Wang S. S. H. Mitra P. P. Clark D. A. (2002). How did brains evolve? Nature 415, 134– 135 10.1038/415135a 11805823 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herculano-Houzel
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Published
2010
Volume
4
Pages
12-12
ISSN
1662-5129 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093621557
Cited by
288
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
18.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroanatomy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
cerebral cortex, cerebellum, neuron number, brain size scaling, mammalian brain evolution, Eulipotyphla, rodents, tree shrew, comparative neuroanatomy

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