New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Brain Study Casts Doubt on Theory of How Human Intelligence Evolved

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Of all the characteristics that distinguish humans from other primates, those related to intelligence hold special interest for scholars and laypeople alike. It's an appropriate enough fascination. After all, what could be more uniquely human than the desire to understand how our big, curious, narcissistic brains evolved? That said, a lot of the story is entirely unknown, and the results of a new study suggest that some of what scientists thought they knew may actually require revision.

According to a popular view of human cognitive capabilities, much of what sets our species apart from the other primates can be attributed to a disproportionate enlargement of a part of the brain known as the frontal cortex that occurred at some point in human evolution. But the evidence traditionally used to support that argument, say Katerina Semendeferi of the University of California at San Diego and her colleagues, comes from small studies that in many cases did not include data from apes, our closest relatives. Furthermore, the studies varied in the way they defined the region of the cortex.

The team's own findings, detailed in the current issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, led to a rather different conclusion. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the researchers obtained brain scans of 15 living great apes, four lesser apes, five monkeys and 10 humans¿a sample larger than any used in the previous studies, which looked at the brains of deceased individuals. They found that, in fact, "the human frontal cortex was as large as expected for a primate brain of human size." That is, the size of the human frontal cortex is, relatively speaking, comparable with¿not larger than¿that of the great ape frontal cortex.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The investigators note that their results do not necessarily imply that the frontal cortex is less important in human cognitive specialization than previous studies have suggested, however. "The frontal cortices could support the outstanding cognitive capabilities of humans without undergoing a disproportionate overall increase in size," they write. It may be that reorganization allowed certain cortical areas to grow at the expense of others, thus maintaining the same overall size. Alternatively, the authors offer, modification of the brain circuitry may have led to richer interconnectivity between these cortical areas.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe