Cited by 87Morphological variations and asymmetryPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

Functional craniology and brain evolution: from paleontology to biomedicine

Open access
Bruner, Emiliano, de la Cuétara, José Manuel, Masters, Michael, Amano, Hideki, Ogihara, Naomichi·2014·Frontiers in Neuroanatomy

Abstract

Anatomical systems are organized through a network of structural and functional relationships among their elements. This network of relationships is the result of evolution, it represents the actual target of selection, and it generates the set of rules orienting and constraining the morphogenetic processes. Understanding the relationship among cranial and cerebral components is necessary to investigate the factors that have influenced and characterized our neuroanatomy, and possible drawbacks associated with the evolution of large brains. The study of the spatial relationships between skull and brain in the human genus has direct relevance in cranial surgery. Geometrical modeling can provide functional perspectives in evolution and brain physiology, like in simulations to investigate metabolic heat production and dissipation in the endocranial form. Analysis of the evolutionary constraints between facial and neural blocks can provide new information on visual impairment. The study of brain form variation in fossil humans can supply a different perspective for interpreting the processes behind neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's disease. Following these examples, it is apparent that paleontology and biomedicine can exchange relevant information and contribute at the same time to the development of robust evolutionary hypotheses on brain evolution, while offering more comprehensive biological perspectives with regard to the interpretation of pathological processes.

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.2014.00019

Cites

178 of 178 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?

  • Early differences in infant brain growth between humans and Neanderthals could have rendered our maturational profile distinct during limited developmental periods and within specific brain regions, imposing different metabolic requirements.

    “early differences in infant brain growth between humans and Neanderthals9,10 could have rendered our maturational profile distinct during limited developmental periods and within specific brain regions, imposing different metabolic requirements163.”

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. Enlow D. H. (1990). Facial Growth. Philadelphia: Saunders
  2. Masters M. P. (2009). Modern Variation and Evolutionary Change in the Hominin Orbit. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Available at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1229024187/inline
  3. Working Group on Myopia Prevalence and Progression. (1989). Myopia: Prevalence and Progression. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruner, E., de la Cuétara, J. M., Masters, M., Amano, H., & Ogihara, N.
Affiliations
  • Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (ES)
  • Montana Technological University (US)
  • Keio University (JP)
Corresponding author
Bruner, Emiliano
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Published
2014-04-02
Volume
8
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1662-5129 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982686609
Cited by
87
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroanatomy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Alzheimer's Association (GM103474, AG05681)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CGL2012-38434-C03-02, CGL2012)
  • National Institutes of Health (BIRN002, GM103474, AG05681, RR14075, P20MH071616, AG 03991, MH071616)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • National Institute on Aging (P50AG005681, P01AG003991)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH071616)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM103474, P20GM103474)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR014075, R01RR016594)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
brain evolution, cranial surgery, geometric modeling, visual impairment, neurodegeneration, Alzheimer's disease, paleoneurology, evolutionary constraints

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