Literature DB >> 8439805

How are more complex brains different? One view and an agenda for comparative neurobiology.

T H Bullock1.   

Abstract

Do more complex brains operate on the same principles as simpler brains, merely employing more of the same; or has evolution produced new principles? A neglected research agenda is the search for relevant differences between brains of animals belonging to different major grades of complexity and cognitive capacity. More complex brains are believed to be capable of more transactions, discriminations, memory and repertoire--functional criteria of 'better' brains. While comparative cognition needs to test these expectations to verify what would be one of the major consequences of evolution, comparative neurobiology needs to discover what, in detail, by all the methods and measures of neuroanatomy, neurophysiology and neurochemistry, is different in more complex brains and which of these differences are relevant to behavioral differences. Formerly it was fashionable to deny differences in the dimension that might be called higher and lower. The criterion of complexity, defined as the number of different parts, processes, interactions and behaviors, may be a useful index of advancement. Unequivocal advancement has occurred between some major taxa, although it is not inevitable. Anatomically, it is clear that novelties have evolved and complexity is more than size or number of the same components. Physiologically, new types of cells, local and larger circuits and emergent properties of assemblies have increased the complexity of operations and organization. It needs to be reasserted that more complex brains have evolved repeatedly, both among invertebrates and among vertebrates, because similar assertions have been incorrectly labeled as 'intuitive scaling' and anthropocentric or moral statements.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8439805     DOI: 10.1159/000113826

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Behav Evol        ISSN: 0006-8977            Impact factor:   1.808


  7 in total

1.  Intracranial volume and dementia: some evidence in support of the cerebral reserve hypothesis.

Authors:  D F Tate; E S Neeley; M C Norton; J T Tschanz; M J Miller; L Wolfson; C Hulette; C Leslie; K A Welsh-Bohmer; B Plassman; Erin D Bigler
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  Theodore H. Bullock: pioneer of integrative and comparative neurobiology.

Authors:  G K H Zupanc; M M Zupanc
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Species-specific differences in sensorimotor adaptation are correlated with differences in social structure.

Authors:  Jörg Oestreich; Harold H Zakon
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2005-09-13       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  NeuronBank: A Tool for Cataloging Neuronal Circuitry.

Authors:  Paul S Katz; Robert Calin-Jageman; Akshaye Dhawan; Chad Frederick; Shuman Guo; Rasanjalee Dissanayaka; Naveen Hiremath; Wenjun Ma; Xiuyn Shen; Hsui C Wang; Hong Yang; Sushil Prasad; Rajshekhar Sunderraman; Ying Zhu
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2010-04-19

5.  Comparative chemosensory cognition.

Authors:  Alan Gelperin
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 3.558

6.  Filtering out parasites: sand crabs (Lepidopa benedicti) are infected by more parasites than sympatric mole crabs (Emerita benedicti).

Authors:  Zen Faulkes
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Is 21st century neuroscience too focussed on the rat/mouse model of brain function and dysfunction?

Authors:  Paul R Manger; Jessica Cort; Naseem Ebrahim; Adelaya Goodman; Justine Henning; Mohamed Karolia; Stacey-Lee Rodrigues; Goran Strkalj
Journal:  Front Neuroanat       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 3.856

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.