4.3 Review

Brain size and the human cranial base: A prenatal perspective

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 118, 期 4, 页码 324-340

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10040

关键词

fetal ontogeny; basicranium; relative encephalization; MRI; human evolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pivotally positioned as the interface between the neurocranium and the face, the cranial base has long been recognized as a key area to our understanding of the origins of modern human skull form. Compared with other primates, modern humans have more coronally orientated petrous bones and a higher degree of basicranial flexion, resulting in a deeper and wider posterior cranial fossa. It has been argued that this derived condition results from a phylogenetic increase in the size of the brain and its subcomponents (infra- and supratentorial volumes) relative to corresponding lengths of the cranial base (posterior and anterior, respectively). The purpose of this study was to test such evolutionary hypotheses in a prenatal ontogenetic context. We measured the degree of basicranial flexion, petrous reorientation, base lengths, and endocranial volumes from high-resolution magnetic resonance images (hrMRI) of 46 human fetuses ranging from 10-29 weeks of gestation. Bivariate comparisons with age revealed a number of temporal trends during the period investigated, most notable of which were coronal rotation of the petrous bones and basicranial retroflexion (flattening). Importantly, the results reveal significant increases of relative endocranial sizes across the sample, and the hypotheses therefore predict correlated variations of cranial base flexion and petrous orientation in accordance with these increases. Statistical analyses did not yield results as predicted by the hypotheses. Thus, the propositions that base flexion and petrous reorientation are due to increases of relative endocranial sizes were not corroborated by the findings of this study, at, least for the period investigated. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据