banner



Home  ›  What Animals Are Considered Reliable And Focused

What Animals Are Considered Reliable And Focused

Written By Thursday, June 16, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Encephalization caliber (EQ), encephalization level (EL), or just encephalization is a relative brain size measure that is divers equally the ratio between observed to predicted encephalon mass for an fauna of a given size, based on nonlinear regression on a range of reference species.[1] [2] It has been used as a proxy for intelligence and thus as a possible way of comparing the intelligences of dissimilar species. For this purpose it is a more refined measurement than the raw brain-to-body mass ratio, equally it takes into account allometric furnishings. Expressed as a formula, the human relationship has been developed for mammals and may non yield relevant results when applied outside this group.[3]

Perspective on intelligence measures [edit]

Encephalization caliber was developed in an attempt to provide a style of correlating an animal'south concrete characteristics with perceived intelligence. Information technology improved on the previous attempt, brain-to-body mass ratio, so it has persisted. Subsequent work, notably Roth,[four] found EQ to be flawed and suggested encephalon size was a better predictor, but that has problems as well.[ unbalanced stance? ]

Currently the best predictor for intelligence beyond all animals is forebrain neuron count.[5] This was not seen earlier because neuron counts were previously inaccurate for most animals. For instance, homo brain neuron count was given as 100 billion for decades before Herculano-Houzel[6] [seven] found a more reliable method of counting brain cells.

Information technology could have been predictable that EQ might exist superseded because of both the number of exceptions and the growing complication of the formulae it used. (Run across the rest of this article.)[ unbalanced opinion? ] The simplicity of counting neurons has replaced it.[ citation needed ] The concept in EQ of comparing the brain capacity exceeding that required for trunk sense and motor activeness may however live on to provide an even ameliorate prediction of intelligence, merely that work has not been done yet.[ citation needed ] [ unbalanced stance? ]

Variance in brain sizes [edit]

Body size accounts for 80–90% of the variance in brain size, between species, and a relationship described past an allometric equation: the regression of the logarithms of brain size on body size. The distance of a species from the regression line is a measure of its encephalization (Finlay, 2009).[eight] The scales are logarithmic, distance, or residual, is an encephalization quotient (EQ), the ratio of actual brain size to expected encephalon size. Encephalization is a characteristic of a species.

Rules for brain size relates to the number brain neurons have varied in development, then not all mammalian brains are necessarily built as larger or smaller versions of a aforementioned programme, with proportionately larger or smaller numbers of neurons. Similarly sized brains, such every bit a cow or chimpanzee, might in that scenario contain very different numbers of neurons, just every bit a very large cetacean brain might contain fewer neurons than a gorilla brain. Size comparison between the homo brain and non-primate brains, larger or smaller, might simply exist inadequate and uninformative – and our view of the human brain as outlier, a special oddity, may have been based on the mistaken supposition that all brains are made the aforementioned (Herculano-Houzel, 2012).[nine] [ citation needed ]

Limitations and possible improvements over EQ [edit]

There is a distinction betwixt brain parts that are necessary for the maintenance of the body and those that are associated with improved cognitive functions. These brain parts, although functionally dissimilar, all contribute to the overall weight of the encephalon. Jerison (1973) for this reason, has considered 'actress neurons', neurons that contribute strictly to cerebral capacities, as more important indicators of intelligence than pure EQ. Gibson et al. (2001) reasoned that bigger brains more often than not contain more 'extra neurons' and thus are better predictors of cerebral abilities than pure EQ, among primates.[10] [eleven]

Factors, such as the recent evolution of the cerebral cortex and different degrees of encephalon folding (gyrification), which increases the surface area (and volume) of the cortex, are positively correlated to intelligence in humans.[12] [13]

In a meta-assay, Deaner et al. (2007) tested ABS, cortex size, cortex-to-brain ratio, EQ, and corrected relative brain size (cRBS) confronting global cognitive capacities. They have institute that, after normalization, just ABS and neocortex size showed significant correlation to cognitive abilities. In primates, ABS, neocortex size, and Nc (the number of cortical neurons) correlated fairly well with cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, at that place were inconsistencies establish for Nc. According to the authors, these inconsistencies were the outcome of the faulty assumption that Northc increases linearly with the size of the cortical surface. This notion is incorrect because the assumption does not take into account the variability in cortical thickness and cortical neuron density, which should influence Northwardc.[xiv] [11]

According to Cairo (2011), EQ has flaws to its design when considering individual data points rather than a species as a whole. It is inherently biased given that the cranial volume of an obese and underweight individual would exist roughly similar, only their trunk masses would be drastically different. Another difference of this nature is a lack of accounting for sexual dimorphism. For example, the female person homo generally has smaller cranial book than the male person, however this does not hateful that a female and male of the same body mass would have different cognitive abilities. Considering all of these flaws, EQ should be a metric for interspecies comparison only, non for intraspecies comparison.[xv]

The notion that encephalization quotient corresponds to intelligence has been disputed by Roth and Dicke (2012). They consider the absolute number of cortical neurons and neural connections equally ameliorate correlates of cognitive ability.[16] According to Roth and Dicke (2012), mammals with relatively loftier cortex volume and neuron packing density (NPD) are more intelligent than mammals with the same brain size. The human brain stands out from the rest of the mammalian and vertebrate taxa because of its large cortical volume and high NPD, conduction velocity, and cortical parcellation. All aspects of human intelligence are found, at least in its primitive form, in other nonhuman primates, mammals, or vertebrates, with the exception of syntactical linguistic communication. Roth and Dicke consider syntactical language an "intelligence amplifier".[11]

Brain-torso size relationship [edit]

Species Simple brain-to-body
ratio (E/Southward)[ commendation needed ]
small birds 1⁄12
human 1⁄40
mouse 1⁄40
dolphin 1⁄50
cat ane⁄100
chimpanzee ane⁄113
dog 1⁄125
frog 1⁄172
lion 1⁄550
elephant one⁄560
horse 1⁄600
shark 1⁄2496
hippopotamus 1⁄2789

Brain size ordinarily increases with body size in animals (is positively correlated), i.e. large animals usually have larger brains than smaller animals.[17] The relationship is not linear, however. More often than not, small mammals have relatively larger brains than big ones. Mice take a direct brain/body size ratio like to humans ( 1⁄40 ), while elephants accept a comparatively small encephalon/torso size ( 1⁄560 ), despite being quite intelligent animals.[18]

Several reasons for this trend are possible, one of which is that neural cells have a relative constant size.[19] Some brain functions, like the brain pathway responsible for a bones task similar cartoon breath, are basically similar in a mouse and an elephant. Thus, the aforementioned corporeality of brain thing tin govern animate in a large or a small body. While non all control functions are independent of body size, some are, and hence big animals demand insufficiently less encephalon than small animals. This phenomenon can exist described by an equation: C =East / S2/3 , where East and S are brain and body weights respectively, and C is called the cephalization factor.[20] To determine the value of this cistron, the brain- and body-weights of various mammals were plotted against each other, and the curve of East =C  × S 2/three chosen as the best fit to that data.[21]

The cephalization factor and the subsequent encephalization quotient was developed by H.J. Jerison in the tardily 1960s.[22] The formula for the curve varies, but an empirical fitting of the formula to a sample of mammals gives E westward ( b r a i due north ) 1 g = 0.12 ( w ( b o d y ) one thou ) 2 iii {\displaystyle {{Ew(brain)} \over {1g}}=0.12{\left({{west(body)} \over {1g}}\right)^{\frac {2}{3}}}} .[3] As this formula is based on information from mammals, it should be applied to other animals with caution. For some of the other vertebrate classes the ability of 3⁄4 rather than 2⁄three is sometimes used, and for many groups of invertebrates the formula may requite no meaningful results at all.[3]

Calculation [edit]

Snell'due south equation of simple allometry is:[ commendation needed ]

E = C Southward r {\displaystyle E=CS^{r}}

Hither "Eastward" is the weight of the brain, "C" is the cephalization factor and "Southward" is torso weight and "r" is the exponential constant.

The "encephalization quotient" (EQ) is the coefficient "C" in Snell's allometry equation, normally normalized with respect to a reference species. In the post-obit table, the coefficients have been normalized with respect to the value for the cat, which is therefore attributed an EQ of i.[17]

Another way to calculate encephalization quotient is past dividing the actual weight of an animal'south brain with its predicted weight according to Jerison'southward formula.[xi]

Species EQ[4]
Human 7.iv–7.8
Dog 1.2
Bottlenose dolphin five.three
Cat 1.0
Chimpanzee ii.2–2.5
Equus caballus 0.nine
Raven[23] ii.49
Sheep 0.8
Rhesus monkey 2.i
Mouse 0.5
African elephant 1.iii
Rat 0.4
Rabbit 0.4
Opossum 0.ii

This measurement of gauge intelligence is more authentic for mammals than for other classes and phyla of Animalia.

EQ and intelligence in mammals [edit]

Intelligence in animals is hard to establish, but the larger the brain is relative to the body, the more brain weight might be available for more complex cerebral tasks. The EQ formula, as opposed to the method of simply measuring raw brain weight or brain weight to body weight, makes for a ranking of animals that coincides better with observed complication of behaviour. A primary reason for the use of EQ instead of a simple encephalon to torso mass ratio is that smaller animals tend to take a higher proportional brain mass, but do not bear witness the same indications of higher cognition as animals with a high EQ.[15]

Grayness floor [edit]

The driving theorization behind the development of EQ is that an animal of a certain size requires a minimum number of neurons for basic operation- sometimes referred to every bit a grayness floor. There is too a limit to how large an animal's brain tin can abound given its torso size – due to limitations like gestation period, energetics, and the need to physically support the encephalized region throughout maturation. When normalizing a standard encephalon size for a grouping of animals, a slope can exist determined to bear witness what a species' expected encephalon to torso mass ratio would exist. Species with brain to body mass ratios below this standard are nearing the grey flooring, and do not need extra grey affair. Species which fall higher up this standard have more grey matter than is necessary for basic functions. Presumably these extra neurons are used for college cerebral processes.[24]

Taxonomic trends [edit]

Mean EQ for mammals is around 1, with carnivorans, cetaceans and primates above i, and insectivores and herbivores beneath. Large mammals tend to have the highest EQs of all animals, while small mammals and avians accept similar EQs.[24] This reflects 2 major trends. One is that brain matter is extremely plush in terms of energy needed to sustain information technology.[25] Animals with food rich diets tend to have college EQs, which is necessary for the energetically costly tissue of brain thing. Not simply is it metabolically enervating to abound throughout embryonic and postnatal development, it is costly to maintain as well.

Arguments have been made that some carnivores may have college EQ's due to their relatively enriched diets, as well as the cerebral capacity required for finer hunting casualty.[26] [27] One case of this is brain size of a wolf; nigh thirty% larger than a similarly sized domestic canis familiaris, potentially derivative of dissimilar needs in their respective way of life.[28]

Dietary trends [edit]

It is worth noting, nonetheless, that of the animals demonstrating the highest EQ'southward (run across associated table), many are primarily frugivores, including apes, macaques, and proboscideans. This dietary categorization is meaning to inferring the pressures which bulldoze higher EQ's. Specifically, frugivores must utilize a complex, trichromatic, map of visual space to locate and option ripe fruits, and are able to provide for the loftier energetic demands of increased brain mass.[29]

Trophic level—"height" on the food chain—is withal another cistron that has been correlated with EQ in mammals. Eutheria with either high AB (absolute brain-mass) or loftier EQ occupy positions at high trophic levels. Eutheria low on the network of nutrient bondage can only develop a high RB (relative brain-mass) so long as they have pocket-sized trunk masses.[xxx] This presents an interesting conundrum for intelligent pocket-size animals, who have behaviors radically dissimilar from intelligent large animals.

Co-ordinate to Steinhausen et al.(2016):

Animals with high RB [relative brain-mass] commonly have (1) a curt life bridge, (2) reach sexual maturity early, and (3) have short and frequent gestations. Moreover, males of species with high RB also have few potential sexual partners. In contrast, animals with high EQs have (i) a high number of potential sexual partners, (2) delayed sexual maturity, and (3) rare gestations with small litter sizes.[30]

[edit]

Some other factor previously idea to have great impact on brain size is sociality and flock size.[31] This was a long-standing theory until the correlation between frugivory and EQ was shown to be more statistically significant. While no longer the predominant inference every bit to choice pressure for high EQ, the social brain hypothesis nonetheless has some support.[29] For example, dogs (a social species) have a higher EQ than cats (a by and large solitary species). Animals with very big flock size and/or complex social systems consistently score high EQ, with dolphins and orcas having the highest EQ of all cetaceans,[32] and humans with their extremely big societies and circuitous social life topping the listing by a good margin.[4]

Comparisons with non-mammalian animals [edit]

Birds generally take lower EQ than mammals, but parrots and especially the corvids show remarkable circuitous behaviour and high learning ability. Their brains are at the high end of the bird spectrum, simply low compared to mammals. Bird prison cell size is on the other hand generally smaller than that of mammals, which may mean more encephalon cells and hence synapses per book, assuasive for more than complex behaviour from a smaller brain.[iv] Both bird intelligence and brain beefcake are however very different from those of mammals, making straight comparison difficult.[23]

Manta rays have the highest EQ among fish,[33] and either octopuses[20] or jumping spiders[34] have the highest among invertebrates. Despite the jumping spider having a huge encephalon for its size, it is minuscule in accented terms, and humans have a much higher EQ despite having a lower raw brain-to-body weight ratio.[35] [36] [6] Hateful EQs for reptiles are about one tenth of those of mammals. EQ in birds (and estimated EQ in other dinosaurs) more often than not also falls beneath that of mammals, possibly due to lower thermoregulation and/or motor command demands.[37] Estimation of brain size in Archaeopteryx (i of the oldest known ancestors of birds), shows it had an EQ well higher up the reptilian range, and just below that of living birds.[38]

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould has noted that if one looks at vertebrates with very low encephalization quotients, their brains are slightly less massive than their spinal cords. Theoretically, intelligence might correlate with the accented amount of brain an animal has after subtracting the weight of the spinal cord from the brain.[39] This formula is useless for invertebrates because they do not accept spinal cords or, in some cases, central nervous systems.

EQ in paleoneurology [edit]

Behavioral complexity in living animals tin can to some degree be observed directly, making the predictive power of the encephalization quotient less relevant. Information technology is however central in paleoneurology, where the endocast of the brain cavity and estimated trunk weight of an creature is all one has to work from. The behavior of extinct mammals and dinosaurs is typically investigated using EQ formulas.[22]

Encephalization quotient is too used in estimating evolution of intelligent behavior in man ancestors. This technique can help in mapping the development of behavioral complexities during homo evolution. Nonetheless, this technique is only express to when there are both cranial and post-cranial remains associated with private fossils, to allow for brain to trunk size comparisons.[40] For example, remains of 1 Middle Pleistocene human fossil from Jinniushan province in northern China has allowed scientists to study the relationship between brain and body size using the Encephalization Quotient.[forty] Researchers obtained an EQ of 4.150 for the Jinniushan fossil, and then compared this value with preceding Center Pleistocene estimates of EQ at 3.7770. The deviation in EQ estimates has been associated with a rapid increase in encephalization in Heart Pleistocene hominins. Paleo-neurological comparisons between Neanderthals and anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) via Encephalization quotient often rely on the apply of endocasts, but there are a lot of drawbacks associated with using this method.[41] For example, endocasts do non provide any information regarding the internal organization of the brain. Furthermore, endocasts are often unclear in terms of the preservation of their boundaries, and it becomes hard to measure where exactly a sure structure starts and ends. If endocasts themselves are non reliable, then the value for brain size used to summate the EQ could besides be unreliable. Additionally, previous studies have suggested that Neanderthals have the same encephalization quotient as mod humans, although their post-crania suggests that they weighed more than modern humans.[42] Considering EQ relies on values from both postcrania and crania, the margin for error increases in relying on this proxy in paleo-neurology because of the inherent difficulty in obtaining accurate brain and trunk mass measurements from the fossil record.

EQ of livestock animals [edit]

The EQ of livestock subcontract animals such as the domestic pig may be significantly lower than would suggest for their apparent intelligence. Co-ordinate to Minervini et al (2016) the brain of the domestic grunter is a rather small size compared to the mass of the animal.[43] The tremendous increase in body weight imposed by industrial farming significantly influences brain-to-trunk weight measures, including the EQ.[43] The EQ of the domestic adult pig is just 0.38, yet pigs tin can utilise visual information seen in a mirror to find nutrient, show evidence of cocky-recognition when presented with their reflections[44] and there is evidence suggesting that pigs are as socially complex as many other highly intelligent animals, possibly sharing a number of cognitive capacities related to social complexity.[45]

History [edit]

The concept of encephalization has been a key evolutionary trend throughout human being development, and consequently an of import area of study. Over the course of hominin development, encephalon size has seen an overall increase from 400 cmiii to 1400 cm3.[40] Furthermore, the genus Man is specifically defined by a pregnant increase in brain size.[41] The earliest Homo species were larger in encephalon size every bit compared to gimmicky Australopithecus counterparts, with which they co-inhabited parts of Eastern and Southern Africa.

Throughout modernistic history, humans have been fascinated by the large relative size of our brains, trying to connect encephalon sizes to overall levels of intelligence. Early on brain studies were focused in the field of phrenology, which was pioneered by Franz Joseph Gall in 1796 and remained a prevalent bailiwick throughout the early 19th century.[41] Specifically, phrenologists paid attention to the external morphology of the skull, trying to relate certain lumps to corresponding aspects of personality. They further measured physical encephalon size in gild to equate larger brain sizes to greater levels of intelligence. Today, even so, phrenology is considered a pseudoscience.[46]

Amid aboriginal Greek philosophers, Aristotle in particular believed that after the centre, the brain was the 2d most important organ of the torso. He also focused on the size of the human brain, writing in 335 BCE that "of all the animals, man has the brain largest in proportion to his size."[47] In 1861, French Neurologist Paul Broca tried to make a connection between brain size and intelligence.[41] Through observational studies, he noticed that people working in what he deemed to be more complex fields had larger brains than people working in less circuitous fields. Besides, in 1871, Charles Darwin wrote in his book The Descent of Human being: "No one, I presume, doubts that the large proportion which the size of human being'due south brain bears to his torso, compared to the aforementioned proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his mental powers."[48] [49] The concept of quantifying encephalization is also not a recent phenomenon. In 1889, Sir Francis Galton, through a report on college students, attempted to quantify the human relationship betwixt brain size and intelligence.[41]

Due to Hitler'due south racial policies during World War 2, studies on encephalon size and intelligence temporarily gained a negative reputation.[41] However, with the advent of imaging techniques such as the fMRI and PET scan, several scientific studies were launched to suggest a relationship between encephalization and advanced cerebral abilities. Harry J. Jerison, who invented the formula for encephalization quotient, believed that brain size was proportional to the ability of humans to process data.[50] With this belief, a higher level of encephalization equated to a higher power to process information. A larger brain could hateful a number of dissimilar things, including a larger cerebral cortex, a greater number of neuronal associations, or a greater number of neurons overall.[41]

Meet also [edit]

  • Encephalon-to-trunk mass ratio
  • Encephalon development timelines
  • Cephalization
  • Cranial capacity
  • Evolutionary biology
  • Human brain
  • Human evolution
  • Neuroscience and intelligence
  • Evolutionary neuroscience

References [edit]

  1. ^ Pontarotti, Pierre (2016). Evolutionary Biological science: Convergent Evolution, Evolution of Circuitous Traits. Springer. p. 74. ISBN978-3-319-41324-ii.
  2. ^ G.Rieke. "Natural Sciences 102: Lecture Notes: Emergence of Intelligence". Retrieved 12 Feb 2011.
  3. ^ a b c Moore, J. (1999). "Allometry". Academy of California, San Diego.
  4. ^ a b c d Roth, Gerhard; Dicke, Ursula (May 2005). "Evolution of the brain and intelligence". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. ix (v): 250–7. doi:x.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005. PMID 15866152. S2CID 14758763.
  5. ^ Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2017). "Numbers of neurons as biological correlates of cerebral capability". Electric current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 16: ane–7. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.02.004. S2CID 53172110.
  6. ^ a b Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2009). "The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-upwards primate encephalon". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 3: 31. doi:x.3389/neuro.09.031.2009. PMC2776484. PMID 19915731.
  7. ^ Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2017). The Human being Advantage: How our brains became remarkable. MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-53353-9. [ page needed ]
  8. ^ Finlay, B.L. (2009). "Brain Evolution: Developmental Constraints and Relative Developmental Growth". Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. pp. 337–345. doi:x.1016/B978-008045046-nine.00939-6. ISBN978-0-08-045046-9.
  9. ^ Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2017) [2012]. "The Homo Nervous Arrangement". Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology (Third ed.).
  10. ^ Jerison, H.J., 1973. Development of the brain and intelligence Academic Press.[HTE].[ page needed ]
  11. ^ a b c d Roth, Gerhard; Dicke, Ursula (2012). "Development of the brain and intelligence in primates". Evolution of the Primate Encephalon. Progress in Brain Enquiry. Vol. 195. pp. 413–430. doi:ten.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00020-nine. ISBN9780444538604. PMID 22230639.
  12. ^ Haier, Richard J.; Jung, Rex E.; Yeo, Ronald A.; Head, Kevin; Alkire, Michael T. (September 2004). "Structural brain variation and full general intelligence". NeuroImage. 23 (1): 425–433. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.04.025. PMID 15325390. S2CID 29426973.
  13. ^ Gregory, Michael D.; Kippenhan, J. Shane; Dickinson, Dwight; Carrasco, Jessica; Mattay, Venkata S.; Weinberger, Daniel R.; Berman, Karen F. (May 2016). "Regional Variations in Encephalon Gyrification Are Associated with Full general Cognitive Ability in Humans". Electric current Biology. 26 (ten): 1301–1305. doi:x.1016/j.cub.2016.03.021. PMC4879055. PMID 27133866.
  14. ^ Deaner, Robert O.; Isler, Karin; Burkart, Judith; Van Schaik, Carel (2007). "Overall Brain Size, and Not Encephalization Caliber, Best Predicts Cognitive Ability across Not-Man Primates". Brain Behav Evol. seventy (two): 115–124. CiteSeerX10.1.1.570.7146. doi:ten.1159/000102973. PMID 17510549. S2CID 17107712.
  15. ^ a b Cairo O. (2011). "External measures of noesis". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 5: 108. doi:ten.3389/fnhum.2011.00108. PMC3207484. PMID 22065955.
  16. ^ Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2012). "Encephalon Development". The Human being Nervous System. pp. ii–13. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374236-0.10001-X. ISBN9780123742360.
  17. ^ a b "Thinking about Brain Size". Retrieved 23 November 2020.
  18. ^ Hart, Benjamin Fifty.; Hart, Lynette A.; McCoy, Michael; Sarath, C.R. (November 2001). "Cognitive behaviour in Asian elephants: utilize and modification of branches for fly switching". Animal Behaviour. 62 (5): 839–847. doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1815. S2CID 53184282.
  19. ^ Oxnard, C.; Cartmill, G.; Brown, K.B. (2008). The human body: Developmental, functional and evolutionary bases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. p. 274. ISBN978-0471235996.
  20. ^ a b Gould (1977) E'er since Darwin, c7s1
  21. ^ Jerison, H.J. (1983). Eisenberg, J.F.; Kleiman, D.G. (eds.). Advances in the Study of Mammalian Beliefs. Special Publication. Vol. 7. Pittsburgh, PA: American Gild of Mammalogists. pp. 113–146.
  22. ^ a b Brett-Surman, Michael M.; Holtz, Thomas R.; Farlow, James O., eds. (27 June 2012). The consummate dinosaur. Illustrated by Bob Walters (2d ed.). Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. pp. 191–208. ISBN978-0-253-00849-vii.
  23. ^ a b Emery, Nathan J (29 January 2006). "Cognitive ornithology: The evolution of avian intelligence". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1465): 23–43. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1736. PMC1626540. PMID 16553307.
  24. ^ a b Dunbar R.I. (2007), "Evolution in the social brain", Science, science magazine, 317 (5843): 1344–1347, Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1344D, doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1145463, PMID 17823343, S2CID 1516792
  25. ^ Isler, K.; van Schaik; C. P (22 December 2006). "Metabolic costs of brain size evolution". Biology Messages. ii (4): 557–560. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0538. PMC1834002. PMID 17148287.
  26. ^ Cruel, J.Chiliad. (1977). "Evolution in carnivorous mammals". Palaeontology. 20 (2): 237–271.
  27. ^ Lefebvre, Louis; Reader, Simon M.; Sol, Daniel (2004). "Brains, Innovations and Evolution in Birds and Primates". Brain, Beliefs and Evolution. 63 (iv): 233–246. doi:10.1159/000076784. PMID 15084816.
  28. ^ "Why Encephalon Size Doesn't Correlate With Intelligence". Smithsonian Magazine.
  29. ^ a b DeCasien, Alex R.; Williams, Scott A.; Higham, James P. (27 March 2017). "Primate brain size is predicted by diet but not sociality". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1 (5): 112. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0112. PMID 28812699. S2CID 205564046.
  30. ^ a b Steinhausen, Charlene; Zehl, Lyuba; Haas-Rioth, Michaela; Morcinek, Kerstin; Walkowiak, Wolfgang; Huggenberger, Stefan (30 September 2016). "Multivariate Meta-Assay of Brain-Mass Correlations in Eutherian Mammals". Frontiers in Neuroanatomy. x: 91. doi:x.3389/fnana.2016.00091. PMC5043137. PMID 27746724.
  31. ^ Shultz, Susanne; Dunbar, R.I.1000. (2006). "Both social and ecological factors predict ungulate brain size". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1583): 207–215. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3283. PMC1560022. PMID 16555789.
  32. ^ Marino, Lori; Sol, Daniel; Toren, Kristen; Lefebvre, Louis (Apr 2006). "Does diving limit brain size in cetaceans?". Marine Mammal Science. 22 (2): 413–425. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00042.x.
  33. ^ Striedter, Georg F. (2005). Principles of brain evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer. ISBN978-0-87893-820-9. [ folio needed ]
  34. ^ "Jumping Spider Vision". Retrieved 28 Oct 2009.
  35. ^ Meyer, Wilfried; Schlesinger, Christa; Poehling, Hans Michael; Ruge, Wolfgang (January 1984). "Comparative quantitative aspects of putative neurotransmitters in the central nervous system of spiders (Arachnida: Araneida)". Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Comparative Pharmacology. 78 (2): 357–362. doi:ten.1016/0742-8413(84)90098-7. PMID 6149080.
  36. ^ Rilling, James Chiliad.; Insel, Thomas R. (August 1999). "The primate neocortex in comparative perspective using magnetic resonance imaging". Journal of Human Evolution. 37 (2): 191–223. doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0313. PMID 10444351.
  37. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (1988) Predatory dinosaurs of the globe. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-671-61946-2[ page needed ]
  38. ^ Hopson, J A (Nov 1977). "Relative Brain Size and Beliefs in Archosaurian Reptiles". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. viii (1): 429–448. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.002241.
  39. ^ "Bligh's Bounty". Archived from the original on 9 July 2001. Retrieved 12 May 2011.
  40. ^ a b c Rosenberg, Thousand. R.; Zune, 50.; Ruff, C. B. (27 February 2006). "Trunk size, body proportions, and encephalization in a Centre Pleistocene primitive human from northern Prc". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (10): 3552–3556. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.3552R. doi:x.1073/pnas.0508681103. PMC1450121. PMID 16505378.
  41. ^ a b c d e f m Cairό, Osvaldo (2011). "External measures of cognition". Frontiers in Man Neuroscience. 5: 108. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00108. PMC3207484. PMID 22065955.
  42. ^ Schoenemann, P. Thomas (2004). "Brain Size Scaling and Trunk Composition in Mammals". Brain, Behavior and Development. 63 (ane): 47–60. doi:ten.1159/000073759. PMID 14673198. S2CID 5885808.
  43. ^ a b Minervini, Serena; Accogli, Gianluca; Pirone, Andrea; Graïc, Jean-Marie; Cozzi, Bruno; Desantis, Salvatore (28 June 2016). "Brain Mass and Encephalization Quotients in the Domestic Industrial Pig (Grunter)". PLOS ONE. 11 (6): e0157378. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1157378M. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0157378. PMC4924858. PMID 27351807.
  44. ^ Broom, D. G.; Sena, H.; Moynihan, Chiliad. L. (2009). "Pigs learn what a mirror prototype represents and employ it to obtain data". Animal Behaviour. 78 (v): 1037–1041. doi:ten.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.027. S2CID 53175225.
  45. ^ Marino, Lori; Colvin, Christina M. (2015). "Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus domesticus". International Periodical of Comparative Psychology. 28 (1). doi:x.46867/ijcp.2015.28.00.04. ISSN 0889-3667.
  46. ^ Graham, Patrick (2001). Phrenology: [revealing the mysteries of the mind. Distributed by American Dwelling house Treasures. ISBN9780779251353. OCLC 51477257.
  47. ^ Russell, Stuart; Norvig, Peter (2003). Artificial Intelligence: A mod approach. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall/Pearson Instruction. ISBN978-0-13-790395-5.
  48. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1981) [1871]. The Descent of Human being, and Selection in Relation to Sexual practice (reprint ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Printing. p. 145. ISBN978-0-691-02369-4.
  49. ^ See as well Darwin, Charles (1874). "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (reprint ed.). p. sixty. same quote as Darwin (1871)[48] cited above, on p. threescore in online text of earlier reprint of second (1874) edition.
  50. ^ Jerison H. J.; Barlow Horace Basil; Weiskrantz Lawrence (thirteen February 1985). "Animate being intelligence as encephalization". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 308 (1135): 21–35. Bibcode:1985RSPTB.308...21J. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0007. PMID 2858875.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Allman, John Morgan (1999). Evolving Brains . New York: Scientific American Library. ISBN978-0-7167-5076-five.
  • Foley, R.A; Lee, P.C; Widdowson, E. Grand.; Knight, C. D.; Jonxis, J. H. P. (1991). "Ecology and energies of encephalization in hominid evolution". Philosophical Transactions of the Majestic Lodge of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 334 (1270): 223–232. doi:ten.1098/rstb.1991.0111. PMID 1685580.
  • Jerison, Harry J. (Jan 1976). "Paleoneurology and the Development of Mind". Scientific American. 234 (1): 90–101. Bibcode:1976SciAm.234a..90J. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0176-90. PMID 1251178.
  • Russon, Ann E.; Begun, David R., eds. (2004). The Evolution of Thought: Evolutionary Origins of Great Ape Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-78335-4.
  • Tobias P.V. (1971). The Brain in Hominid Evolution. New York and London: Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-03518-7.
  • Van Schaik, Carel (April 2006). "Why Are Some Animals So Smart?". Scientific American. 294 (4): 64–71. Bibcode:2006SciAm.294d..64V. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0406-64. PMID 16596881. (Also cited in various publications as volume 16, upshot 2, pp. 30–37. For example)
  • Boddy, AM; McGowen, MR; Sherwood, CC; Grossman, LI; Goodman, M; Wildman, DE (May 2012). "Comparative analysis of encephalization in mammals reveals relaxed constraints on anthropoid primate and cetacean brain scaling". Periodical of Evolutionary Biology. 25 (5): 981–94. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02491.ten. PMID 22435703. S2CID 35368663.
  • Dunbar R.I. (2007). "Evolution in the social brain". Scientific discipline. science mag. 317 (5843): 1344–1347. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1344D. doi:x.1126/science.1145463. PMID 17823343. S2CID 1516792.
  • Decasien, A.R. (2017). "Primate encephalon size is predicted by diet just non sociality". Nature. 1 (5): 112. doi:x.1038/s41559-017-0112. PMID 28812699. S2CID 205564046.
  • Cairo O. (2011). "External measures of cognition". Frontiers in Homo Neuroscience. v: 108. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00108. PMC3207484. PMID 22065955.
  • Herculano-Houzel S. (2017). The Human Reward: How our brains became remarkable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing. ISBN978-0-262-53353-9.

External links [edit]

  • "mawint1". Archived from the original on 4 January 2011.
  • "A graph of body mass vs. brain mass". brainmuseum.org.
  • Gould, Stephen Jay. "Bligh'due south Bounty". monash.edu.au. Archived from the original on 9 July 2001.
  • "Encephalization quotients, Kleiber's Constabulary, and statistical methods".
  • Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2013). What is and so special about the human being brain (video). TED Talk.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

Posted by: batsonallind.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Animals Are Considered Reliable And Focused"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel