The Central Nervous System

Portmann, Adolf; Stingelin, Werner

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3143-3.50006-x

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, psittaciforms tend to have significantly larger brain and telencephalic volumes than non-passerines, thus confirming the observations of previous studies [Portmann, 1946[Portmann, , 1947Portmann and Stingelin, 1961;Bennett and Harvey, 1985;van Dongen, 1993]. The prediction that psittaciforms and primates would possess similar relative brain and telencephalic volumes was also supported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Interspecific Allometry of the Brain and Brain Regions in Parrots (Psittaciformes): Comparisons with Other Birds and Primates

Iwaniuk¹,

Dean²,

Nelson³

2004

Brain Behav Evol

159

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite significant progress in understanding the evolution of the mammalian brain, relatively little is known of the patterns of evolutionary change in the avian brain. In particular, statements regarding which avian taxa have relatively larger brains and brain regions are based on small sample sizes and statistical analyses are generally lacking. We tested whether psittaciforms (parrots, cockatoos and lorikeets) have larger brains and forebrains than other birds using both conventional and phylogenetically based methods. In addition, we compared the psittaciforms to primates to determine if cognitive similarities between the two groups were reflected by similarities in brain and telencephalic volumes. Overall, psittaciforms have relatively larger brains and telencephala than most other non-passerine orders. No significant difference in relative brain or telencephalic volume was detected between psittaciforms and passerines. Comparisons of other brain region sizes between psittaciforms and other birds, however, exhibited conflicting results depending upon whether body mass or a brain volume remainder (total brain volume – brain region volume) was used as a scaling variable. When compared to primates, psittaciforms possessed similar relative brain and telencephalic volumes. The only exception to this was that in some analyses psittaciforms had significantly larger telencephala than primates of similar brain volume. The results therefore provide empirical evidence for previous claims that psittaciforms possess relatively large brains and telencephala. Despite the variability in the results, it is clear that psittaciforms tend to possess large brains and telencephala relative to non-passerines and are similar to primates in this regard. Although it could be suggested that this reflects the advanced cognitive abilities of psittaciforms, similar studies performed in corvids and other avian taxa will be required before this claim can be made with any certainty.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Interspecific Allometry of the Brain and Brain Regions in Parrots (Psittaciformes): Comparisons with Other Birds and Primates

Iwaniuk¹,

Dean²,

Nelson³

2004

Brain Behav Evol

159

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As seen in method (A), regressions can be based on taxa of a 'basal' group [see Portmann and Stingelin, 1961] but usually are based on the taxa included in the study [e.g. Krebs et al, 1989;DeVoogd et al, 1993;Barton and Purvis, 1994;Barton, 1996;Joffe and Dunbar, 1997;Barton, 1998;present study].…”

Section: Methods (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Tests of Primate Cognition: Different Scaling Methods Produce Different Results

Deaner

Nunn

Schaik³

2000

Brain Behav Evol

125

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although early comparative studies supported hypotheses that ecological demands selected for primate cognition, later work indicated that social demands were more important. One difference between earlier and later studies is that earlier studies scaled brain structures by (A) taking residuals from an interspecific regression of the brain structure in question on body mass, whereas later studies scaled them by (B) taking residuals from an interspecific regression of the brain structure in question on another brain structure or by (C) taking ratios of the brain structure in question to another brain structure. We conducted a series of comparative tests to explore the possibility that the different methods are responsible for the discrepancy between earlier and later studies. Specifically, we tested the ability of a social variable – group size – and an ecological variable – home range size – to explain variation in the non-V1 isocortex (isocortex minus primary visual cortex) when this structure was scaled with the three different methods. In multiple regression analysis, group size was a better predictor of the non-V1 isocortex with method (B). With methods (A) and (C), however, results were ambiguous: either home range size or group size explained more of the variation, depending on the inclusion of outliers, the use of independent contrasts, and whether home range size was scaled relative to body mass. We examine the three scaling methods and find no reasonable basis for preferring any of them. Hence, our results do not allow a distinction between social and ecological hypotheses. The general implications of our study are that (1) previous comparative studies are inconclusive and (2) further research is needed to develop a scaling method where relative measures of brain structure size are demonstrated to correspond with behavioral performance.

show abstract

“…They suggest, rather, that the primary effect of the lesion is upon neural mechanisms related to food intake. DISCUSSION Previous investigations involving lesion and stimulation techniques have suggested that basal forebrain regions are involved in the neural control of feeding by the pigeon (Portmann & Stingelin, 1961 ;Phillips, 1964;Harwood & Vowles, 1966). The present study has localized the structures involved more precisely and shown that lesions in these structures produce disturbances in food and water intake.…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%