Cochlear labyrinth volume in Krapina Neandertals

Beals, Michaela E.; Frayer, David W.; Radovčić, Jakov; Hill, Cheryl A.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.09.005

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impedance matching function of the middle ear is informative about the sensitivity level but not the frequency range of hearing, because the latter depends strongly on other parameters and structures, like the cochlea (43,44). In light of nearly identical dimensions of the external acoustic meatus and cochlea in AMHs and Neandertals (26)(27)(28), our data, thus, show no support for differences in hearing capacities between AMHs and Neandertals. This finding corroborates recent studies showing similar auditory capacities between AMHs and fossils from Atapuerca A B C Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Because the external acoustic meatus and cochlea have nearly identical dimensions in AMHs and Neandertals (26)(27)(28), such shape differences of the ossicles could indicate differences in auditory capacities and with it, potential implications for habitat preference and aspects of vocal communication. However, the temporal bone housing the ossicles is well-known to differentiate Neandertals from AMHs, and some of its structures express morphological covariation (29,30).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Stoessel

David

Gunz

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diminutive middle ear ossicles (malleus, incus, stapes) housed in the tympanic cavity of the temporal bone play an important role in audition. The few known ossicles of Neandertals are distinctly different from those of anatomically modern humans (AMHs), despite the close relationship between both human species. Although not mutually exclusive, these differences may affect hearing capacity or could reflect covariation with the surrounding temporal bone. Until now, detailed comparisons were hampered by the small sample of Neandertal ossicles and the unavailability of methods combining analyses of ossicles with surrounding structures. Here, we present an analysis of the largest sample of Neandertal ossicles to date, including many previously unknown specimens, covering a wide geographic and temporal range. Microcomputed tomography scans and 3D geometric morphometrics were used to quantify shape and functional properties of the ossicles and the tympanic cavity and make comparisons with recent and extinct AMHs as well as African apes. We find striking morphological differences between ossicles of AMHs and Neandertals. Ossicles of both Neandertals and AMHs appear derived compared with the inferred ancestral morphology, albeit in different ways. Brain size increase evolved separately in AMHs and Neandertals, leading to differences in the tympanic cavity and, consequently, the shape and spatial configuration of the ossicles. Despite these different evolutionary trajectories, functional properties of the middle ear of AMHs and Neandertals are largely similar. The relevance of these functionally equivalent solutions is likely to conserve a similar auditory sensitivity level inherited from their last common ancestor.middle ear | homo | 3D shape | covariation T he hominin fossil record can only provide indirect information about auditory capacities of our extinct relatives. Inferences about the evolution of the human sense of hearing require understanding of the interplay between form and function in extant species. When auditory capacities are visualized as audiograms, plotting the sensitivity for different frequencies, anatomically modern humans (AMHs) differ from the W-shaped pattern found in most anthropoid primates. AMHs are characterized by a drastically lowered high-frequency cutoff and maintaining high sensitivity in the low to midfrequencies, resulting in a U-shaped audiogram (1-7). In primates, such hearing variability is assumed to be partly related to forms of vocalization and habitat acoustics (8-10). Diverse hearing capabilities are also related to the morphology of the diminutive middle ear ossicles housed in the tympanic cavity (11, 12). The malleus, incus, and stapes form the ossicular chain that connects the tympanic membrane to the oval window of the inner ear. These bones play an important role in audition by amplifying and regulating the sound waves transmitted to the cochlea (11,(13)(14)(15). In particular, the middle ear acts as a transformer that matches the impedances between the air and the pe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Stoessel

David

Gunz

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Inferences Concerning Language and Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/10/03/106955]), breathing control, and acoustic sensitivity (audiograms) involved in modern speech. Since then, there is better evidence that the Neanderthal cochlear volume and audition were similar to modern humans and different from the chimpanzees [67], that despite differences in the morphology of the ear ossicles (probably due to differences in cranium) they were functionally very similar probably due to selective pressures for the maintenance of the same auditory profile [68 ], while the biomechanical modeling of the Kebara 2 Neanderthal hyoid showed that it is extremely similar to the modern human one in more than just shape [69 ].Neanderthals had elaborate cultural adaptations that were virtually identical to AMH (until the latter developed the Upper Paleolithic toolkit after the demise of the Neanderthals), they flexibly adapted to their ecologies, buried their dead (apparently with mortuary ceremonies), built large structures, penetrated deeply into caves, and seem to have adorned themselves with drilled beads and feathers. They inhabited a climatic range (from Arctic to Mediterranean) requiring the extended ability to use culture as a buffer for ecological adaptation, and they interacted repeatedly with AMH over tens of thousands of years, exchanging genes, parasites and culture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neanderthal language revisited: not only us

Dediu

Levinson

2018

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we re-evaluate our 2013 paper on the antiquity of language (Dediu and Levinson, 2013) in the light of a surge of new information on human evolution in the last half million years. Although new genetic data suggest the existence of some cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans -fully expected after hundreds of thousands of years of partially separate evolution, overall our claims that Neanderthals were fully articulate beings and that language evolution was gradual are further substantiated by the wealth of new genetic, paleontological and archeological evidence briefly reviewed here. IntroductionIn 2013 we published a paper [1] arguing that vocal language has had a long and gradual evolution in the 1.5 my since Homo erectus, and that Neanderthals were articulate humans, not very different from us. We marshaled paleontological, archeological and genetic evidence against the saltationist view that language evolved abruptly within the last 100 ky (e.g. [2]). Since then there has been a flurry of new evidence from paleontology, archeology and ancient DNA that, we argue here, largely supports our views of a much deeper antiquity and gradualism. The human treeOne striking finding is that many human lineages were coexisting just 300 kya (including Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, Denisovans, Neanderthals and even anatomically modern humans [3 ]), another being the degree of reticulation in the human tree evidenced by genetics. Recent data suggests that at least 50 ky of interactions on a vast geographic scale from the Levant to Siberia and Western Europe gave plenty of scope for interbreeding; Figure 1 shows some of the gene flow across the Neanderthals, Denisovans and ourselves.The ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa c. 650 kya, and by 450 kya had diverged into these two lineages, and there are indications of early Neanderthal and Denisovan interbreeding [4], and of interbreeding between Denisovans and yet another archaic hominin. The Neanderthals then interbred with anatomically modern humans (AMH) on at least three occasions, likely when AMH first came into the Levant 100-120 kya [5 ,6], and also during AMH's move into glacial Europe (c. 50 kya [7]). For example, a Siberian Neanderthal has AMH genes introgressed c. 110 kya [7], and an early AMH with Neanderthal anatomical features c. 40 kya from Romania [8] had Neanderthal ancestry just 4-6 generations before [9]. Recent data suggests that while Neanderthals and Denisovans clearly form a clade, the mtDNA groups the former with AMH due to their original mtDNA being replaced by an AMH-like lineage probably through interbreeding before c. 270 kya [10]. It is now clear that such interbreeding did leave traces in contemporary modern humans outside Africa at the level of a few percent of the genome, with regional and inter-individual variation probably due to repeated interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans [5 ,11 ,12 ]. Contact between human lineages is also revealed by other lines of evidence including the oral commen...

show abstract

“…To date, we have fossilized hyoids from australopithecines [99], Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals ([85,100,101]; the finding originally identified as a Homo erectus hyoid [102] has been reinterpreted as a fragment of a vertebra [103]), and it seems that, while the Australopithecus hyoid is clearly different from the modern human one, the Neanderthal and pre-Neanderthal ones are very similar to our own [9,104]. The shape of the ear structures can be reconstructed using computed tomography (CT) scans, and ear ossicles are sometimes directly preserved [105–108], allowing inferences about the audition of long-gone humans: from these, it seems that, functionally, the hearing of Neanderthals was very similar to that of modern humans and clearly different from that of chimpanzees [9,10]. Unfortunately, brain endocasts [109,110] and the size of the hypoglossal canal [111,112] seem to currently offer rather limited and unclear evidence concerning speech and language.…”

Section: Aspects Of the Vocal Tract That Can Be Recovered From The Osteological And Fossil Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

The vocal tract as a time machine: inferences about past speech and language from the anatomy of the speech organs

Dediu

Moisik

Baetsen³

et al. 2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While speech and language do not fossilize, they still leave traces that can be extracted and interpreted. Here, we suggest that the shape of the hard structures of the vocal tract may also allow inferences about the speech of long-gone humans. These build on recent experimental and modelling studies, showing that there is extensive variation between individuals in the precise shape of the vocal tract, and that this variation affects speech and language. In particular, we show that detailed anatomical information concerning two components of the vocal tract (the lower jaw and the hard palate) can be extracted and digitized from the osteological remains of three historical populations from The Netherlands, and can be used to conduct three-dimensional biomechanical simulations of vowel production. We could recover the signatures of inter-individual variation between these vowels, in acoustics and articulation. While ‘proof-of-concept’, this study suggests that older and less well-preserved remains could be used to draw inferences about historic and prehistoric languages. Moreover, it forces us to clarify the meaning and use of the uniformitarian principle in linguistics, and to consider the wider context of language use, including the anatomy, physiology and cognition of the speakers. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Reconstructing prehistoric languages’.

show abstract

Cochlear labyrinth volume in Krapina Neandertals

Cited by 10 publications

References 31 publications

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Neanderthal language revisited: not only us

The vocal tract as a time machine: inferences about past speech and language from the anatomy of the speech organs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About