Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 55, No. 1, 2000
Issue release date: January 2000
Section title: Original Paper
Brain Behav Evol 2000;55:44–52
(DOI:10.1159/000006641)

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

Deaner R.O. · Nunn C.L. · van Schaik C.P.
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, N.C., USA

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 9.00
Account: USD 8.00

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: 4/7/2000

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0006-8977 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9743 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/BBE

Abstract

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.


  

Author Contacts

Robert O. Deaner
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Box 90383
Durham, NC 27708-0383 (USA)
Tel. (919) 660-7389, Fax (919) 660-7348
E-Mail rod1@acpub.duke.edu

  

Article Information

Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 1, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 86

  

Publication Details

Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Founded 1968 and continued 1968–1986 by W. Riss, New York, N.Y.
Official Organ of the J.B. Johnston Club

Vol. 55, No. 1, Year 2000 (Cover Date: January 2000)

Journal Editor: Walter Wilczynski, Austin, Tex.
ISSN: 0006–8977 (print), 1421–9743 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/journals/bbe


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: 4/7/2000

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0006-8977 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9743 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/BBE


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.