Cited by 70Primate Behavior and EcologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology

Quantitative uniqueness of human brain evolution revealed through phylogenetic comparative analysis

Open access
Miller, Ian F, Barton, Robert A, Nunn, Charles L·2019·eLife

Abstract

While the human brain is clearly large relative to body size, less is known about the timing of brain and brain component expansion within primates and the relative magnitude of volumetric increases. Using Bayesian phylogenetic comparative methods and data for both extant and fossil species, we identified that a distinct shift in brain-body scaling occurred as hominins diverged from other primates, and again as humans and Neanderthals diverged from other hominins. Within hominins, we detected a pattern of directional and accelerating evolution towards larger brains, consistent with a positive feedback process in the evolution of the human brain. Contrary to widespread assumptions, we found that the human neocortex is not exceptionally large relative to other brain structures. Instead, our analyses revealed a single increase in relative neocortex volume at the origin of haplorrhines, and an increase in relative cerebellar volume in apes.

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 · 10.7554/elife.41250

Cites

96 of 96 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?

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: 1

  1. Barton RA 2000 Primate brain evolution: cognitive demands of foraging or of social life Move Why Anim. Travel Groups University of Chicago Press 204 237

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, I. F., Barton, R. A., & Nunn, C. L.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Miller, Ian F
Venue
eLife
Published
2019-01-31
Volume
8
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911811857
Cited by
70
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (BCS-1355902)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Keywords
human brain evolution, cerebellar volume, apes, Neanderthals, primate brain size
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Humans, Models, Biological, Organ Size, Phylogeny, Primates

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