Brain Size Didn’t Drive Evolution, Research Suggests

Brain organization, not overall size, may be the key evolutionary difference between primate brains, and the key to what gives humans their smarts, new research suggests.

In the study, researchers looked at 17 species that span 40 million years of evolutionary time, finding changes in the relative size of specific brain regions, rather than changes in brain size, accounted for three-quarters of brain evolution over that time. The study, published today (March 26) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, also revealed that massive increases in the brain’s prefrontal cortex played a critical role in great ape evolution.

"For the first time, we can really identify what is so special about great ape brain organization," said study co-author Jeroen Smaers, an evolutionary biologist at the University College London.

Is bigger better?

Traditionally, scientists have thought humans’ superior intelligence derived mostly from the fact that our brains are three times bigger than our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees.

But bigger isn’t always better. Bigger brains take much more energy to power, so scientists have hypothesized that brain reorganization could be a smarter strategy to evolve mental abilities.

To see how brain organization evolved throughout primates, Smaers and his colleague Christophe Soligo analyzed post-mortem slices of brains from 17 different primates, then mapped changes in brain size onto an evolutionary tree.

Over evolutionary time, several key brain regions increased in size relative to other regions. Great apes (especially humans) saw a rise in white matter in the prefrontal cortex, which contributes to social cognition, moral judgments, introspection and goal-directed planning.

"The prefrontal cortex is a little bit like the CEO of the brain," Smaers told LiveScience. "It takes information from other brain areas and it synthesizes them."

When great apes diverged from old-world monkeys about 20 million years ago, brain regions tied to motor planning also increased in relative size. That could have helped them orchestrate the complex movements needed to manipulate tools — possibly to get at different food sources, Smaers said.

Gibbons and howler monkeys showed a different pattern. Even though their bodies and their brains got smaller over time, the hippocampus, which plays a role in spatial tasks, tended to increase in size in relation to the rest of the brain. That may have allowed these monkeys to be spatially adept and inhabit a more diverse range of environments.

Prefrontal cortex

The study shows that specific parts of the brain can selectively scale up to meet the demands of new environments, said Chet Sherwood, an anthropologist at George Washington University, who was not involved in the study.

The finding also drives home the importance of the prefrontal cortex, he said.

"It’s very suggestive that connectivity of prefrontal cortex has been a particularly strong driving force in ape and human brains," Sherwood told LiveScience.

New mechanism for long-term memory formation discovered

UC Irvine neurobiologists have found a novel molecular mechanism that helps trigger the formation of long-term memory. The researchers believe the discovery of this mechanism adds another piece to the puzzle in the ongoing effort to uncover the mysteries of memory and, potentially, certain intellectual disabilities.

In a study led by Marcelo Wood of UC Irvine’s Center for the Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, the team investigated the role of this mechanism – a gene designated Baf53b – in long-term memory formation. Baf53b is one of several proteins making up a molecular complex called nBAF.

Mutations in the proteins of the nBAF complex have been linked to several intellectual disorders, including Coffin-Siris syndrome, Nicolaides-Baraitser syndrome and sporadic autism. One of the key questions the researchers addressed is how mutations in components of the nBAF complex lead to cognitive impairments.

In their study, Wood and his colleagues used mice bred with mutations in Baf53b. While this genetic modification did not affect the mice’s ability to learn, it did notably inhibit long-term memories from forming and severely impaired synaptic function.

“These findings present a whole new way to look at how long-term memories form,” said Wood, associate professor of neurobiology & behavior. “They also provide a mechanism by which mutations in the proteins of the nBAF complex may underlie the development of intellectual disability disorders characterized by significant cognitive impairments.”

How does this mechanism regulate gene expression required for long-term memory formation? Most genes are tightly packaged by a chromatin structure – chromatin being what compacts DNA so that it fits inside the nucleus of a cell. That compaction mechanism represses gene expression. Baf53b, and the nBAF complex, physically open the chromatin structure so specific genes required for long-term memory formation are turned on. The mutated forms of Baf53b did not allow for this necessary gene expression.

“The results from this study reveal a powerful new mechanism that increases our understanding of how genes are regulated for memory formation,” Wood said. “Our next step is to identify the key genes the nBAF complex regulates. With that information, we can begin to understand what can go wrong in intellectual disability disorders, which paves a path toward possible therapeutics.”

Findings appear online today in Nature Neuroscience.

Meet London’s Babylab, where scientists experiment on babies’ brains

In the laboratories of the Henry Wellcome Building at Birkbeck, University of London, children’s squeaky toys lie scattered on the floor. Brightly coloured posters of animals are pasted on the walls and picture books are stacked on the low tables. This is the Babylab — a research centre that experiments on children aged one month to three years, to understand how they learn, develop and think. “The way babies’ brains change is an amazing and mysterious process,” says the lab director, psychologist Mark Johnson. “The brain increases in size by three- to four-fold between birth and teenage years, but we don’t understand how that relates to its function.”

The Birkbeck neuroscientists are interested in finding out how babies recognise faces, how they learn to pay attention to some things and not others, how they perceive emotion and how their language develops. Studies published by the lab have shown that babies prefer to look at faces over objects. They have also found that differences in the dopamine-producing gene can affect babies’ attention span and that at six to eight months of age, there are detectable differences in the brain patterns of babies who were later diagnosed with autism.

The biggest obstacle is designing the right kinds of experiment. “There aren’t many methods for getting inside the mind of an infant or a toddler,” Johnson explains. Graduate students at the Babylab have teamed up with technology companies, using a €1.9 million (£1.7 million) grant from the European Union, to develop tools such as EEG head nets that record electrical brain activity, helmets that use light to measure blood flow in different parts of the brain, and eye-trackers that help study attention. Eventually, they want to create wireless systems so babies can react and play naturally during experiments. But despite the wires, “all our studies are geared towards making sure our babies are contented,” says Johnson. “If we want data, we need happy babies.”

Links Between Physical And Emotional Pain Relief

We often regard relief as the dissipation of pain, discomfort or stress. However, the specific emotion associated with the sense of relief really isn’t fully understood. It is for this reason a team of researchers from the Association for Psychological Science undertook a study in which they aimed to explore and understand more fully the psychological mechanisms at work responsible for providing us with the idea of relief.

To experts in the field, the term for relief after the removal of pain is called the pain offset relief.

The team states their research recognizes the concept of relief, and the mechanisms behind it, are nearly identical for both healthy individuals and those with a history of self-harm. They claim the identical nature of pain offset relief in both of these groups suggests it is a natural mechanism useful in regulating our emotions. Prior to the laboratory portion of the experiment, the researchers assessed participants for emotion dysregulation and reactivity, self-injurious behavior, and various psychiatric disorders.

When an individual is experiencing the sensation of pain or discomfort, the likelihood they will experience a negative emotion is significantly increased. The team wanted to learn specifically if pain offset relief led to more positive emotions being experienced or if it only aided in alleviation of negative emotions.

Lead author Joseph Franklin, along with his colleagues working on the study, employed the use of electrodes intended to measure the participants’ negative emotions and positive emotions when the participants were subjected to loud noises. The loud noise was sometimes presented on its own. At other times, the participants would have received a low- or high-intensity shock at either a 3.5, 6 or 14 second interval preceding the loud noise.

Participants in the study showed an increase in positive emotion in combination with decreased negative emotion after pain offset. They learned the greatest increase in positive emotion occurred almost simultaneously with the culmination of the high-intensity shocks. Alternately, the greatest decrease in negative emotion was associated with the culmination of a low-intensity shock.

The team has published their findings, which they claim will shed light on the emotional nature of pain offset relief, in the journal Psychological Science, as well as the journal Clinical Psychological Science. Additionally, they feel their study might be useful in gaining a better understanding into why some people would seek the sensation of relief by engaging in self-harm behaviors.

It is important to note the results of this study do not support the hypothesis that heightened pain offset relief is a risk factor for engaging in self-harm behaviors. In fact, the team speculates the biggest risk factors for nonsuicidal self-injury may concern how some people overcome the instinctive barriers that keep most people from inflicting self-harm.

Reward linked to image is enough to activate brain’s visual cortex

Once rhesus monkeys learn to associate a picture with a reward, the reward by itself becomes enough to alter the activity in the monkeys’ visual cortex. This finding was made by neurophysiologists Wim Vanduffel and John Arsenault (KU Leuven and Harvard Medical School) and American colleagues using functional brain scans and was published recently in the leading journal Neuron.

Our visual perception is not determined solely by retinal activity. Other factors also influence the processing of visual signals in the brain. “Selective attention is one such factor,” says Professor Wim Vanduffel. “The more attention you pay to a stimulus, the better your visual perception is and the more effective your visual cortex is at processing that stimulus. Another factor is the reward value of a stimulus: when a visual signal becomes associated with a reward, it affects our processing of that visual signal. In this study, we wanted to investigate how a reward influences activity in the visual cortex.”

Pavlov inverted

To do this, the researchers used a variant of Pavlov’s well-known conditioning experiment: “Think of Pavlov giving a dog a treat after ringing a bell. The bell is the stimulus and the food is the reward. Eventually the dogs learned to associate the bell with the food and salivated at the sound of the bell alone. Essentially, Pavlov removed the reward but kept the stimulus. In this study, we removed the stimulus but kept the reward.”

In the study, the rhesus monkeys first encountered images projected on a screen followed by a juice reward (classical conditioning). Later, the monkeys received juice rewards while viewing a blank screen. fMRI brain scans taken during this experiment showed that the visual cortex of the monkeys was activated by being rewarded in the absence of any image.

Importantly, these activations were not spread throughout the whole visual system but were instead confined to the specific brain regions responsible for processing the exact stimulus used earlier during conditioning. This result shows that information about rewards is being sent to the visual cortex to indicate which stimuli have been associated with rewards.

Equally surprising, these reward-only trials were found to strengthen the cue-reward associations. This is more or less the equivalent to giving Pavlov’s dog an extra treat after a conditioning session and noticing the next day that he salivates twice as much as before. More generally, this result suggests that rewards can be associated with stimuli over longer time scales than previously thought.

Dopamine

Why does the visual cortex react selectively in the absence of a visual stimulus on the retina? One potential explanation is dopamine. “Dopamine is a signalling chemical (neurotransmitter) in nerve cells and plays an important role in processing rewards, motivation, and motor functions. Dopamine’s role in reward signalling is the reason some Parkinson’s patients fall into gambling addiction after taking dopamine-increasing drugs. Aware of dopamine’s role in reward, we re-ran our experiments after giving the monkeys a small dose of a drug that blocks dopamine signalling. We found that the activations in the visual cortex were reduced by the dopamine blocker. What’s likely happening here is that a reward signal is being sent to the visual cortex via dopamine,” says Professor Vanduffel.

The study used fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scans to visualise brain activity. fMRI scans map functional activity in the brain by detecting changes in blood flow. The oxygen content and the amount of blood in a given brain area vary according to the brain activity associated with a given task. In this way, task-specific activity can be tracked.

‘Brain waves’ challenge area-specific view of brain activity

Our understanding of brain activity has traditionally been linked to brain areas – when we speak, the speech area of the brain is active. New research by an international team of psychologists led by David Alexander and Cees van Leeuwen (Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics) shows that this view may be overly rigid. The entire cortex, not just the area responsible for a certain function, is activated when a given task is initiated. Furthermore, activity occurs in a pattern: waves of activity roll from one side of the brain to the other.

The brain can be studied on various scales, researcher David Alexander explains: “You have the neurons, the circuits between the neurons, the Brodmann areas – brain areas that correspond to a certain function – and the entire cortex. Traditionally, scientists looked at local activity when studying brain activity, for example, activity in the Brodmann areas. To do this, you take EEG’s (electroencephalograms) to measure the brain’s electrical activity while a subject performs a task and then you try to trace that activity back to one or more brain areas.”

Activity waves

In this study, the psychologists explore uncharted territory: “We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex as a whole. The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive something, the information does not end up in a specific part of our brain. Rather, it is added to the brain’s existing activity. If we measure the electrochemical activity of the whole cortex, we find wave-like patterns. This shows that brain activity is not local but rather that activity constantly moves from one part of the brain to another. The local activity in the Brodmann areas only appears when you average over many such waves.”

Each activity wave in the cerebral cortex is unique. “When someone repeats the same action, such as drumming their fingers, the motor centre in the brain is stimulated. But with each individual action, you still get a different wave across the cortex as a whole. Perhaps the person was more engaged in the action the first time than he was the second time, or perhaps he had something else on his mind or had a different intention for the action. The direction of the waves is also meaningful. It is already clear, for example, that activity waves related to orienting move differently in children – more prominently from back to front – than in adults. With further research, we hope to unravel what these different wave trajectories mean.”

Sleep study reveals how the adolescent brain makes the transition to mature thinking

A new study conducted by monitoring the brain waves of sleeping adolescents has found that remarkable changes occur in the brain as it prunes away neuronal connections and makes the major transition from childhood to adulthood.

“We’ve provided the first long-term, longitudinal description of developmental changes that take place in the brains of youngsters as they sleep,” said Irwin Feinberg, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the UC Davis Sleep Laboratory. “Our outcome confirms that the brain goes through a remarkable amount of reorganization during puberty that is necessary for complex thinking.”

The research, published in the February 15 issue of American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, also confirms that electroencephalogram, or EEG, is a powerful tool for tracking brain changes during different phases of life, and that it could potentially be used to help diagnose age-related mental illnesses. It is the final component in a three-part series of studies carried out over 10 years and involving more than 3,500 all-night EEG recordings. The data provide an overall picture of the brain’s electrical behavior during the first two decades of life.

Feinberg explained that scientists have generally assumed that a vast number of synapses are needed early in life to recover from injury and adapt to changing environments. These multiple connections, however, impair the efficient problem solving and logical thinking required later in life. His study is the first to show how this shift can be detected by measuring the brain’s electrical activity in the same children over the course of time.

Two earlier studies by Feinberg and his colleagues showed that EEG fluctuations during the deepest (delta or slow wave) phase of sleep, when the brain is most recuperative, consistently declined for 9- to 18-year-olds. The most rapid decline occurred between the ages of 12 and 16-1/2. This led the team to conclude that the streamlining of brain activity — or “neuronal pruning” — required for adult cognition occurs together with the timing of reproductive maturity.

Questions remained, though, about electrical activity patterns in the brains of younger children.

For the current study, Feinberg and his research team monitored 28 healthy, sleeping children between the ages of 6 and 10 for two nights every six months. The new findings show that synaptic density in the cerebral cortex reaches its peak at age 8 and then begins a slow decline. The recent findings also confirm that the period of greatest and most accelerated decline occurs between the ages of 12 and 16-1/2 years, at which point the drop markedly slows.

“Discovering that such extensive neuronal remodeling occurs within this 4-1/2 year timeframe during late adolescence and the early teen years confirms our view that the sleep EEG indexes a crucial aspect of the timing of brain development,” said Feinberg.

The latest study also confirms that EEG sleep analysis is a powerful approach for evaluating adolescent brain maturation, according to Feinberg. Besides being a relatively simple, accessible technology for measuring the brain’s electrical activity, it is more accurate than more cumbersome and expensive options.

“Structural MRI, for instance, has not been able to identify the adolescent accelerations and decelerations that are easily and reliably captured by sleep EEG,” said Feinberg. “We hope our data can aid the search for the unknown genetic and hormonal biomarkers that drive those fluctuations. Our data also provide a baseline for seeking errors in brain development that signify the onset of diseases such as schizophrenia, which typically first become apparent during adolescence. Once these underlying processes have been identified, it may become possible to influence adolescent brain changes in ways that promote normal development and correct emerging abnormalities.”

(Image: iStockphoto)

Origins of teamwork found in our nearest relative the chimpanzee

Teamwork has been fundamental in humanity’s greatest achievements but scientists have found that working together has its evolutionary roots in our nearest primate relatives – chimpanzees.

A series of trials by scientists found that chimpanzees not only coordinate actions with each other but also understand the need to help a partner perform their role to achieve a common goal.

Pairs of chimpanzees were given tools to get grapes out of a box. They had to work together with a tool each to get the food out. Scientists found that the chimpanzees would solve the problem together, even swapping tools, to pull the food out.

The study, published in Biology Letters, by scientists from Warwick Business School, UK, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, sought to find out if there were any evolutionary roots to humans’ ability to cooperate and coordinate actions.

Dr Alicia Melis, Assistant Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School, said: “We want to find out where humans’ ability to cooperate and work together has come from and whether it is unique to us.

“Many animal species cooperate to achieve mutually beneficial goals like defending their territories or hunting prey. However, the level of intentional coordination underlying these group actions is often unclear, and success could be due to independent but simultaneous actions towards the same goal.

“This study provides the first evidence that one of our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzees, not only intentionally coordinate actions with each other but that they even understand the necessity to help a partner performing her role in order to achieve the common goal.

“These are skills shared by both chimpanzees and humans, so such skills may have been present in their common ancestor before humans evolved their own complex forms of collaboration”

Neanderthal brains focussed on vision and movement

Neanderthal brains were adapted to allow them to see better and maintain larger bodies, according to new research by the University of Oxford and the Natural History Museum, London.

Although Neanderthals’ brains were similar in size to their contemporary modern human counterparts, fresh analysis of fossil data suggests that their brain structure was rather different. Results imply that larger areas of the Neanderthal brain, compared to the modern human brain, were given over to vision and movement and this left less room for the higher level thinking required to form large social groups.

The analysis was conducted by Eiluned Pearce and Professor Robin Dunbar at the University of Oxford and Professor Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum, London, and is published in the online version of the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Looking at data from 27,000–75,000-year-old fossils, mostly from Europe and the Near East, they compared the skulls of 32 anatomically modern humans and 13 Neanderthals to examine brain size and organisation. In a subset of these fossils, they found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets, and therefore eyes, than modern humans.

The researchers calculated the standard size of fossil brains for body mass and visual processing requirements. Once the differences in body and visual system size are taken into account, the researchers were able to compare how much of the brain was left over for other cognitive functions.

Previous research by the Oxford scientists shows that modern humans living at higher latitudes evolved bigger vision areas in the brain to cope with the low light levels. This latest study builds on that research, suggesting that Neanderthals probably had larger eyes than contemporary humans because they evolved in Europe, whereas contemporary humans had only recently emerged from lower latitude Africa.

'Since Neanderthals evolved at higher latitudes and also have bigger bodies than modern humans, more of the Neanderthal brain would have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking,' explains lead author Eiluned Pearce from the  Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford.

‘Smaller social groups might have made Neanderthals less able to cope with the difficulties of their harsh Eurasian environments because they would have had fewer friends to help them out in times of need. Overall, differences in brain organisation and social cognition may go a long way towards explaining why Neanderthals went extinct whereas modern humans survived.’

'The large brains of Neanderthals have been a source of debate from the time of the first fossil discoveries of this group, but getting any real idea of the “quality” of their brains has been very problematic,' says Professor Chris Stringer, Research Leader in Human Origins at the Natural History Museum and co-author on the paper. 'Hence discussion has centred on their material culture and supposed way of life as indirect signs of the level of complexity of their brains in comparison with ours.

'Our study provides a more direct approach by estimating how much of their brain was allocated to cognitive functions, including the regulation of social group size; a smaller size for the latter would have had implications for their level of social complexity and their ability to create, conserve and build on innovations.'

Professor Robin Dunbar observes: ‘Having less brain available to manage the social world has profound implications for the Neanderthals’ ability to maintain extended trading networks, and are likely also to have resulted in less well developed material culture – which, between them, may have left them more exposed than modern humans when facing the ecological challenges of the Ice Ages.’

The relationship between absolute brain size and higher cognitive abilities has long been controversial, and this new study could explain why Neanderthal culture appears less developed than that of early modern humans, for example in relation to symbolism, ornamentation and art.

Depression stems from miscommunication between brain cells

A new study from the University of Maryland School of Medicine suggests that depression results from a disturbance in the ability of brain cells to communicate with each other. The study indicates a major shift in our understanding of how depression is caused and how it should be treated. Instead of focusing on the levels of hormone-like chemicals in the brain, such as serotonin, the scientists found that the transmission of excitatory signals between cells becomes abnormal in depression. The research, by senior author Scott M. Thompson, Ph.D., Professor and Interim Chair of the Department of Physiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, was published online in the March 17 issue of Nature Neuroscience.

"Dr. Thompson’s groundbreaking research could alter the field of psychiatric medicine, changing how we understand the crippling public health problem of depression and other mental illness," says E. Albert Reece, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., Vice President for Medical Affairs at the University of Maryland and John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "This is the type of cutting-edge science that we strive toward at the University of Maryland, where discoveries made in the laboratory can impact the clinical practice of medicine."

The first major finding of the study was the discovery that serotonin has a previously unknown ability to strengthen the communication between brain cells. “Like speaking louder to your companion at a noisy cocktail party, serotonin amplifies excitatory interactions in brain regions important for emotional and cognitive function and apparently helps to make sure that crucial conversations between neurons get heard,” says Dr. Thompson. “Then we asked, does this action of serotonin play any role in the therapeutic action of drugs like Prozac?”

To understand what might be wrong in the brains of patients with depression and how elevating serotonin might relieve their symptoms, the study team examined the brains of rats and mice that had been repeatedly exposed to various mildly stressful conditions, comparable to the types of psychological stressors that can trigger depression in people.

The researchers could tell that their animals became depressed because they lost their preference for things that are normally pleasurable. For example, normal animals given a choice of drinking plain water or sugar water strongly prefer the sugary solution. Study animals exposed to repeated stress, however, lost their preference for the sugar water, indicating that they no longer found it rewarding. This depression-like behavior strongly mimics one hallmark of human depression, called anhedonia, in which patients no longer feel rewarded by the pleasures of a nice meal or a good movie, the love of their friends and family, and countless other daily interactions.

A comparison of the activity of the animals’ brain cells in normal and stressed rats revealed that stress had no effect on the levels of serotonin in the ‘depressed’ brains. Instead, it was the excitatory connections that responded to serotonin in strikingly different manner. These changes could be reversed by treating the stressed animals with antidepressants until their normal behavior was restored.

"In the depressed brain, serotonin appears to be trying hard to amplify that cocktail party conversation, but the message still doesn’t get through," says Dr. Thompson. Using specially engineered mice created by collaborators at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the study also revealed that the ability of serotonin to strengthen excitatory connections was required for drugs like antidepressants to work.

Sustained enhancement of communication between brain cells is considered one of the major processes underlying memory and learning. The team’s observations that excitatory brain cell function is altered in models of depression could explain why people with depression often have difficulty concentrating, remembering details, or making decisions. Additionally, the findings suggest that the search for new and better antidepressant compounds should be shifted from drugs that elevate serotonin to drugs that strengthen excitatory connections.

"Although more work is needed, we believe that a malfunction of excitatory connections is fundamental to the origins of depression and that restoring normal communication in the brain, something that serotonin apparently does in successfully treated patients, is critical to relieving the symptoms of this devastating disease," Dr. Thompson explains.

(Image: McGovern Institute, MIT)