What do brain endocasts tell us? A comparative analysis of the accuracy of sulcal identification by experts and perspectives in palaeoanthropology.

Palaeoneurology is a complex field as the object of study, the brain, does not fossilize. Studies rely therefore on the (brain) endocranial cast (often named endocast), the only available and reliable proxy for brain shape, size and details of surface. However, researchers debate whether or not specific marks found on endocasts correspond reliably to particular sulci and/or gyri of the brain that were imprinted in the braincase. The aim of this study is to measure the accuracy of sulcal identification through an experiment that reproduces the conditions that palaeoneurologists face when working with hominin endocasts. We asked 14 experts to manually identify well-known foldings in a proxy endocast that was obtained from an MRI of an actual in vivo Homo sapiens head. We observe clear differences in the results when comparing the non-corrected labels (the original labels proposed by each expert) with the corrected labels. This result illustrates that trying to reconstruct a sulcus following the very general known shape/position in the literature or from a mean specimen may induce a bias when looking at an endocast and trying to follow the marks observed there. We also observe that the identification of sulci appears to be better in the lower part of the endocast compared to the upper part. The results concerning specific anatomical traits have implications for highly debated topics in palaeoanthropology. Endocranial description of fossil specimens should in the future consider the variation in position and shape of sulci in addition to using models of mean brain shape. Moreover, it is clear from this study that researchers can perceive sulcal imprints with reasonably high accuracy, but their correct identification and labelling remains a challenge, particularly when dealing with extinct species for which we lack direct knowledge of the brain.

Is the middle cranial fossa a reliable predictor of temporal lobe volume in extant and fossil anthropoids?

OBJECTIVES: We investigate the suitability of middle cranial fossa (MCF) size as a proxy for temporal lobe volume (TLV), examining the strength of the association between TLV and MCF metrics and assess the reliability predicting TLV in fossil anthropoids. The temporal lobe of the primate brain is a multimodal association cortex involved in long-term memory, auditory, and visual processing with unique specializations in modern humans for language comprehension. The MCF is the bony counterpart for the temporal lobe providing inferences for fossil hominin temporal lobe evolution. We now investigate whether the MCF is a suitable proxy for the temporal lobe. METHODS: A sample of 23 anthropoid species (n = 232, including 13 fossil species) from computed tomography (CT) scans of ex vivo crania and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the in vivo brain were generated into three-dimensional (3D) virtual models. Seven linear metrics were digitally measured on the right MCF with right TLV calculated from in vivo MRI. RESULTS: Regression analyses produced statistically significant correlations between TLV and all MCF metrics (r ≥ 0.85; p ≤ 0.0009) with TLV predictions within ±1 standard error and three MCF metrics (posterior-width, mid-length, and mid-width) the most reliable predictors of TLV with only one metric weakly associated with TLV. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate a strong association between the MCF and TLV, provide reliable predictors of fossil TLV that were previously unattainable, allow the inclusion of fragmentary fossil material, and enable inferences into the emergence of modern human temporal lobe morphology.

The 'temporal effect' in hominids: Reinvestigating the nature of support for a chimp-human clade in bone morphology.

In 2004, an analysis by Lockwood and colleagues of hard-tissue morphology, using geometric morphometrics on the temporal bone, succeeded in recovering the correct phylogeny of living hominids without resorting to potentially problematic methods for transforming continuous shape variables into meristic characters. That work has increased hope that by using modern analytical methods and phylogenetically informative anatomical data we might one day be able to accurately infer the relationships of hominins, including the closest extinct relatives of modern humans. In the present study, using 3D virtually generated models of the hominid temporal bone and a larger suite of geometric morphometric and comparative techniques, we have re-examined the evidence for a Pan-Homo clade. Despite differences in samples, as well as the type of raw data, the effect of measurement error (and especially landmark digitization by a different operator), but also a broader perspective brought in by our diverse set of approaches, our reanalysis largely supports Lockwood and colleagues' original results. However, by focusing not only mainly on shape (as in the original 2004 analysis) but also on size and 'size-corrected' (non-allometric) shape, we demonstrate that the strong phylogenetic signal in the temporal bone is largely related to similarities in size. Thus, with this study, we are not suggesting the use of a single 'character', such as size, for phylogenetic inference, but we do challenge the common view that shape, with its highly complex and multivariate nature, is necessarily more phylogenetically informative than size and that actually size and size-related shape variation (i.e., allometry) confound phylogenetic inference based on morphology. This perspective may in fact be less generalizable than often believed. Thus, while we confirm the original findings by Lockwood et al., we provide a deep reinterpretation of their nature and potential implications for hominid phylogenetics and we show how crucial it is not to overlook size in geometric morphometric analyses.

Updated imaging and phylogenetic comparative methods reassess relative temporal lobe size in anthropoids and modern humans.

OBJECTIVES: Two decades ago, Rilling and Seligman, hereafter abbreviated to RAS Study, suggested modern humans had relatively larger temporal lobes for brain size compared to other anthropoids. Despite many subsequent studies drawing conclusions about the evolutionary implications for the emergence of unique cerebral specializations in Homo sapiens, no re-assessment has occurred using updated methodologies. METHODS: We reassessed the association between right temporal lobe volume (TLV) and right hemisphere volume (HV) in the anthropoid brain. In a sample compiled de novo by us, T1-weighted in vivo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans of 11 extant anthropoid species were calculated by-voxel from the MRI and the raw data from RAS Study directly compared to our sample. Phylogenetic Generalized Least-Squares (PGLS) regression and trait-mapping using Blomberg's K (kappa) tested the correlation between HV and TLV accounting for anthropoid phylogeny, while bootstrapped PGLS regressions tested difference in slopes and intercepts between monkey and ape subsamples. RESULTS: PGLS regressions indicated statistically significant correlations (r2 < 0.99; p ≤ 0.0001) between TLV and HV with moderate influence from phylogeny (K ≤ 0.42). Bootstrapped PGLS regression did not show statistically significant differences in slopes between monkeys and apes but did for intercepts. In our sample, human TLV was not larger than expected for anthropoids. DISCUSSION: Updated imaging, increased sample size and advanced statistical analyses did not find statistically significant results that modern humans possessed a disproportionately large temporal lobe volume compared to the general anthropoid trend. This has important implications for human and non-human primate brain evolution.