4.3 Article

A quantitative morphometric comparative analysis of the primate temporal lobe

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 505-533

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2001.0537

关键词

allometry; evolution; primates; temporal lobe; brain; comparative study; MRI

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR-00165] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given their importance in language comprehension, the human temporal lobes and/or some of their component structures might be expected to be larger than allometric predictions for a nonhuman anthropoid brain of human size. Whole brain, T1-weighted MRI scans were collected from 44 living anthropoid primates spanning I I species. Easyvision software (Philips Medical Systems, The Netherlands) was used to measure the volume of the entire brain, the temporal lobes, the superior temporal gyri, and the temporal lobe white matter. The surface areas of both the entire temporal lobe and the superior temporal gyrus were also measured, as was temporal cortical gyrification. Allometric regressions of temporal lobe structures on brain volume consistently showed apes and monkeys to scale along different trajectories, with the monkeys typically lying at a higher elevation than the apes. Within the temporal lobe, overall volume, surface area, and white matter volume were significantly larger in humans than predicted by the ape regression lines. The largest departure from allometry in humans was for the temporal lobe white matter volume which, in addition to being significantly larger than predicted for brain size, was also significantly larger than predicted for temporal lobe volume. Among the nonhuman primate sample, Cebus have small temporal lobes for their brain size, and Macaca and Papio have large superior temporal gyri for their brain size. The observed departures from allometry might reflect neurobiological adaptations supporting species-specific communication in both humans and old world monkeys. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.

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