[Indications and technic of cryotherapy of hemorrhoids].

E. B. BERTI RIBOLI,G. Sorice,F. Cafiero,G. Pesce

1978-08-16

Minerva Chirurgica

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Fallacies in Neuroscience: The Alzheimer's Edition

Karl Herrup

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0530-21.2021

2022-02-11

eNeuro

Abstract:In his editorial entitled "On Fallacies in Neuroscience," Bernard (2020) takes his fellow neuroscientists to task for failures in logic that lead to the promulgation of fallacies and their entrenchment in the scientific literature. Drawing on his background in mathematics and philosophy, he highlights two common errors in logic that permeate our field. The first error he discusses leads to a fallacy known as "reverse inference." The example he cites is subtle, but all the more telling because it "feels" correct before we are shown the problem. Imagine that my brain is in a scanner when I experience a bout of fear. The scan shows that a particular brain region (Bernard calls it Area Z) lights up brightly with the onset of my fear. One would be correct in proposing that Area Z is likely involved in my brain's processing of fear. The fallacious conclusion, however, would be to assert that if Area Z is lit, I must be experiencing fear. That is the "reverse" of the experimental design, which was to induce fear and see which brain region activates. As Bernard (2020) points out, one could easily imagine that if I were experiencing a different emotion, even joy, Area Z might also light up. Without a lot more data, all we know is that the region is correlated with my experience of fear. We do not know that it is either necessary or sufficient to cause my fear. The second error he describes leads to a fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." His choice of example in this case is far easier to grasp. He starts with two objectively true statements. The first one is a conditional statement: if Francis Bacon wrote Hamlet , then he had to have been a great writer. ...

neurosciences
The Comparative Method in Cross-Cultural and Cross-Species Research

Randy Thornhill,Corey L. Fincher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-013-9239-2

2013-05-22

Evolutionary Biology

Abstract:Comparative methodology is controversial in biology and the related field of research on behavioral and psychological traits across human cultures. We critically examine this controversy. We argue that the widely held opinion of non-independence among historically-related cultures and species errs by not recognizing and incorporating into research the two distinct and complementary categories of causation that account for an extant trait—the phylogenetic origin of the trait (cultural or otherwise) and the maintenance of the trait after its phylogenetic origin. Phylogenetic correction for non-independence is required in the comparative study of a trait’s phylogenetic origin, but is irrelevant for the comparative study of the causation of a trait’s maintenance after its phylogenetic origin. Across cultures, even closely related cultures, causes that are specific to each culture act to maintain cultural similarities, which makes such similarities independent. Among species, even closely related species, similarities are maintained by lineage-specific, and hence independent, evolutionary causal processes. Comparative methodology has been criticized as being inferior to other types of scientific methodology (e.g., experimentation), because it is based on correlational data. This criticism is erroneous because, all scientific findings are correlational, and in hypothesis testing, the ability of an empirical finding to address causation depends solely upon the control of confounding variables, not the type of scientific method itself.

evolutionary biology
Exploration, inference and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine

Danilo Bzdok,John Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.10310

2019-02-21

Abstract:The last decades saw dramatic progress in brain research. These advances were often buttressed by probing single variables to make circumscribed discoveries, typically through null hypothesis significance testing. New ways for generating massive data fueled tension between the traditional methodology, used to infer statistically relevant effects in carefully-chosen variables, and pattern-learning algorithms, used to identify predictive signatures by searching through abundant information. In this article, we detail the antagonistic philosophies behind two quantitative approaches: certifying robust effects in understandable variables, and evaluating how accurately a built model can forecast future outcomes. We discourage choosing analysis tools via categories like 'statistics' or 'machine learning'. Rather, to establish reproducible knowledge about the brain, we advocate prioritizing tools in view of the core motivation of each quantitative analysis: aiming towards mechanistic insight, or optimizing predictive accuracy.

Neurons and Cognition,Applications
Phylogenetic Comparison on Cognition: Advances in Evolutionary Psychology

Tao Chen,Yanjie Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/tb-2019-0204

2019-01-01

Abstract:More and more biological evidence has been yielded in support of physical evolution of species. In contrast, psychological evolution has been, so far, studied primarily with theoretical exploration. There are two theoretical approaches to the evolution on cognitive ability. The first, Common Ancestor, states that all species, including humans, have a common ancestor, from whom particular cognitive abilities in all existing species are inherited. The second, Evolutionary Convergence holds that different species possess similar cognitive abilities. The controversy between the two theories lies in the explanation of similar cognitive abilities in different species, one focusing on theoretical deduction and the other on parsimony in interpretation. However, both agree that basic cognitive abilities can be a starting point for studying the evolution on cognitive abilities. The top-down and the bottom-up approaches are usually used to study the cognitive abilities of different species. The top-down approach focuses on the cross-species levels of presence of a certain cognitive ability, and explores its level of presence among different species in relation to that in human beings. For the bottom-up approach, researchers generally analyze and study basic cognitive abilities, or the basic components of complex cognitive abilities, and systematically study the degree of difference between species in these basic cognitive abilities, which are universally present across species. The top-down approach can provide a precondition for defining the species boundaries of certain cognitive abilities, or which species have such abilities, while the bottom-up approach employs systematic methods to study the basic components of relevant cognitive abilities through cross-species experiments. The elaboration above suggests that we can understand the emergence and development of certain cognitive abilities, and the relationship between human’s advanced and basic cognitive abilities from the perspective of phylogenesis. Phylogenetic comparative methods are an important kind of bottom-up method. For a basic cognitive ability, the method of phylogenetic comparison is used to conduct cross-species experiments, so that the data obtained can be compared systematically. The results are of great significance for answering theoretical questions regarding cognitive evolution. For example, Amici and colleagues examined the ability of social inhibitory control in six primates (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, capuchin monkeys, and spider monkeys), and found that the level of fission-fusion dynamics could partially predict this ability. MacLean and colleagues studied the inhibitory control of 567 individuals from 36 species (birds and mammals), and showed that inhibitory control was positively correlated with absolute brain volume. Dietary breadth also predicted inhibitory control in the primate species studied. Jones and colleagues tested numerical cognition in three lemurs ( Lemur catta , Eulemur mongoz , and Eulemur Macaco flavifrons ), rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ), and human adults. They did not find any difference in nature among the four non-human groups in this ability. Specifically, the internal representation by all four non-humans was as predicted by the approximate number system and fit the linear representation model of the system. Cognitive differences among the five groups mainly lied in their numerical acuity, with humans having the lowest Weber fractions and the highest sensitivity. Chen improved their methods, tested humans in five age groups and golden snub-nosed monkeys ( Rhinopithecus roxellana ), and obtained findings consistent with those of the previous study. With the rise of cross-species systematic comparison, the latest trend of in-depth exploration into cognitive ability, research on phylogenesis on cognitive ability has entered a quantitative stage. Quantitative research on the relationship between evolutionary adaptive pressure and cognitive ability will help reveal patterns in the emergence and development on cognitive abilities in different species and even human beings.
A tale of too many trees: a conundrum for phylogenetic regression

Richard Adams,Jenniffer Roa Lozano,Mataya Duncan,Jack Green,Raquel Assis,Michael DeGiorgio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.16.580530

2024-02-20

Abstract:Just exactly which tree(s) should we assume when testing evolutionary hypotheses? This question has plagued comparative biologists for decades. Given a perfectly estimated tree (if this is even possible in practice), we seldom know with certainty whether such a tree is truly best (or even adequate) to represent the evolutionary history of our studied traits. Regardless of our certainty, choosing a tree is required for all phylogenetic comparative methods. Yet, phylogenetic conflict and error are ubiquitous in modern comparative biology, and we are still learning about their dangers when testing evolutionary hypotheses. Here we investigated the consequences of gene tree-species tree mismatch for phylogenetic regression in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting. Our simulation experiments reveal excessively high false positive rates for mismatched phylogenetic regression with both small and large trees, simple and complex traits, and known and estimated phylogenies. In some cases, we find evidence of a directionality of error: incorrectly assuming a species tree for traits that evolved according to a gene tree sometimes fares worse than the opposite. To explore difficult yet realistic regression scenarios, we also used estimated rather than known trees to conduct case studies, as well as an expansive gene expression dataset to investigate an arguably best-case scenario in which one may have a better chance to match tree with trait. Though never meant to be a panacea for all that may ail phylogenetic comparative methods, we found promise in the application of a robust estimator as a potential, albeit imperfect, solution to some issues raised by tree mismatch, perhaps offering a path forward. Collectively, our results emphasize the importance of careful study design for comparative methods, highlighting the need to fully appreciate the role of adequate phylogenetic modeling for testing evolutionary hypotheses.

Evolutionary Biology
Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not “One Cognition”

Juliane Bräuer,Daniel Hanus,Simone Pika,Russell Gray,Natalie Uomini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8030028

IF: 3.1759

2020-07-02

Journal of Intelligence

Abstract:Using the comparative approach, researchers draw inferences about the evolution of cognition. Psychologists have postulated several hypotheses to explain why certain species are cognitively more flexible than others, and these hypotheses assume that certain cognitive skills are linked together to create a generally “smart” species. However, empirical findings suggest that several animal species are highly specialized, showing exceptional skills in single cognitive domains while performing poorly in others. Although some cognitive skills may indeed overlap, we cannot a priori assume that they do across species. We argue that the term “cognition” has often been used by applying an anthropocentric viewpoint rather than a biocentric one. As a result, researchers tend to overrate cognitive skills that are human-like and assume that certain skills cluster together in other animals as they do in our own species. In this paper, we emphasize that specific physical and social environments create selection pressures that lead to the evolution of certain cognitive adaptations. Skills such as following the pointing gesture, tool-use, perspective-taking, or the ability to cooperate evolve independently from each other as a concrete result of specific selection pressures, and thus have appeared in distantly related species. Thus, there is not “one cognition”. Our argument is founded upon traditional Darwinian thinking, which—although always at the forefront of biology—has sometimes been neglected in animal cognition research. In accordance with the biocentric approach, we advocate a broader empirical perspective as we are convinced that to better understand animal minds, comparative researchers should focus much more on questions and experiments that are ecologically valid. We should investigate nonhuman cognition for its own sake, not only in comparison to the human model.
Dispelling five myths about hypothesis testing in biological systematics

Kirk Fitzhugh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0274-6

2016-03-14

Abstract:The emphasis on testing phylogenetic hypotheses has been prominent since the English language introductions of Willi Hennig’s Phylogenetic Systematics (1966) and Karl Popper’s (1959) Logic of Scientific Discovery. While the mechanics of hypothesis and theory testing are well established in other fields of science, adherence to those prescriptions in biological systematics has rarely been formally recognized. The consequence has been the development of potentially contradictory approaches to empirically evaluating phylogenetic hypotheses under the guise of testing. In his brief review of the topic, Assis (Cladistics, 30:240–242, 2014) identified five different views on phylogenetic hypothesis testing: (1) total evidence, (2) taxonomic congruence, (3) reciprocal illumination, (4) homology assessment, and (5) taxa sampling. The present paper examines the validity of these views against the actual inferential steps required to infer hypotheses and subsequently engage in testing, i.e., abduction, deduction, and induction (sensu stricto), respectively. It is shown that none of the tests discussed by Assis are valid, and while it is straightforward to outline what is required to properly test phylogenetic hypotheses, the feasibility of accomplishing such tests is operationally impractical in most instances.

evolutionary biology,zoology
The same analysis approach: Practical protection against the pitfalls of novel neuroimaging analysis methods

Kai Görgen,Martin N. Hebart,Carsten Allefeld,John-Dylan Haynes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.083

IF: 5.7

2018-10-01

NeuroImage

Abstract:Standard neuroimaging data analysis based on traditional principles of experimental design, modelling, and statistical inference is increasingly complemented by novel analysis methods, driven e.g. by machine learning methods. While these novel approaches provide new insights into neuroimaging data, they often have unexpected properties, generating a growing literature on possible pitfalls. We propose to meet this challenge by adopting a habit of systematic testing of experimental design, analysis procedures, and statistical inference. Specifically, we suggest to apply the analysis method used for experimental data also to aspects of the experimental design, simulated confounds, simulated null data, and control data. We stress the importance of keeping the analysis method the same in main and test analyses, because only this way possible confounds and unexpected properties can be reliably detected and avoided. We describe and discuss this Same Analysis Approach in detail, and demonstrate it in two worked examples using multivariate decoding. With these examples, we reveal two sources of error: A mismatch between counterbalancing (crossover designs) and cross-validation which leads to systematic below-chance accuracies, and linear decoding of a nonlinear effect, a difference in variance.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,neurosciences,neuroimaging
Why are there so many explanations for primate brain evolution?

R. I. M. Dunbar,Susanne Shultz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0244

2017-07-03

Abstract:The question as to why primates have evolved unusually large brains has received much attention, with many alternative proposals all supported by evidence. We review the main hypotheses, the assumptions they make and the evidence for and against them. Taking as our starting point the fact that every hypothesis has sound empirical evidence to support it, we argue that the hypotheses are best interpreted in terms of a framework of evolutionary causes (selection factors), consequences (evolutionary windows of opportunity) and constraints (usually physiological limitations requiring resolution if large brains are to evolve). Explanations for brain evolution in birds and mammals generally, and primates in particular, have to be seen against the backdrop of the challenges involved with the evolution of coordinated, cohesive, bonded social groups that require novel social behaviours for their resolution, together with the specialized cognition and neural substrates that underpin this. A crucial, but frequently overlooked, issue is that fact that the evolution of large brains required energetic, physiological and time budget constraints to be overcome. In some cases, this was reflected in the evolution of ‘smart foraging’ and technical intelligence, but in many cases required the evolution of behavioural competences (such as coalition formation) that required novel cognitive skills. These may all have been supported by a domain-general form of cognition that can be used in many different contexts. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Physiological determinants of social behaviour in animals’.
NeuroComparatives: Neuro-Symbolic Distillation of Comparative Knowledge

Phillip Howard,Junlin Wang,Vasudev Lal,Gadi Singer,Yejin Choi,Swabha Swayamdipta

2024-04-06

Abstract:Comparative knowledge (e.g., steel is stronger and heavier than styrofoam) is an essential component of our world knowledge, yet understudied in prior literature. In this paper, we harvest the dramatic improvements in knowledge capabilities of language models into a large-scale comparative knowledge base. While the ease of acquisition of such comparative knowledge is much higher from extreme-scale models like GPT-4, compared to their considerably smaller and weaker counterparts such as GPT-2, not even the most powerful models are exempt from making errors. We thus ask: to what extent are models at different scales able to generate valid and diverse comparative knowledge?

Computer Science
The Biology and Evolution of the Three Psychological Tendencies to Anthropomorphize Biology and Evolution

Marco Antonio Correa Varella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01839

2018-10-01

Abstract:At the core of anthropomorphism lies a false positive cognitive bias to over-attribute the pattern of the human body and/or mind. Anthropomorphism is independently discussed in various disciplines, is presumed to have deep biological roots, but its cognitive bases are rarely explored in an integrative way. Conversely, I present an inclusive, multifaceted interdisciplinary approach to refine the psychological bases of mental anthropomorphism. I have integrated 13 conceptual dissections of folk finalistic reasoning into four psychological inference systems (physical, design, basic-goal, and belief stances); the latter three are truly teleological and thus prone to anthropomorphisms. I then have integrated the genetic, neural, cognitive, psychiatric, developmental, comparative and evolutionary/adaptive empirical evidence that converges to support the nature of the distinct stances. The over-reactive calibration of the three teleological systems prone to anthropomorphisms is framed as an evolved design feature to avoid harmful ancestral contexts. Nowadays, these stances easily engage with scientific reasoning about bio-evolutionary matters with both negative and positive consequences. Design, basic-goal, and belief stances benefit biology by providing cognitive foundations, expressing a high-powered explanatory system, promoting functional generalization, fostering new research questions and discoveries, enabling metaphorical/analogical thinking and explaining didactically with brevity. Hence, it is neither feasible nor advantageous to completely eliminate teleology from biology. Instead, we should engage with the eight classes of problems in bio-philosophy and bio-education that relate to the three stances: types of anthropomorphism, variety of misunderstandings, misleading appeal, legitimacy controversy, gateway to mysticism, total prohibition and its backfire effect. Recognizing the distinction among design, basic-goal, and belief stances helps to elucidate much of the logic underlying these issues, so that it enables a much more detailed taxonomy of anthropomorphisms, and organizes the various misunderstandings about evolution by natural selection. It also offers a solid psychological grounding for anchoring definitions and terminology. This tripartite framework also shed some light on how to better deal with the over-reactive stances in bio-education, by organizing previous pedagogical strategies and by suggesting new possibilities to be tested. Therefore, this framework constitutes a promising approach to advance the debate regarding the psychological underpinnings of anthropomorphisms and to further support regulating and clarifying teleology and anthropomorphism in biology.
Imaging evolution of the primate brain: the next frontier?

Patrick Friedrich,Stephanie J Forkel,Céline Amiez,Joshua H Balsters,Olivier Coulon,Lingzhong Fan,Alexandros Goulas,Fadila Hadj-Bouziane,Erin E Hecht,Katja Heuer,Tianzi Jiang,Robert D Latzman,Xiaojin Liu,Kep Kee Loh,Kaustubh R Patil,Alizée Lopez-Persem,Emmanuel Procyk,Jerome Sallet,Roberto Toro,Sam Vickery,Susanne Weis,Charles R E Wilson,Ting Xu,Valerio Zerbi,Simon B Eickoff,Daniel S Margulies,Rogier B Mars,Michel Thiebaut de Schotten,Stephanie J. Forkel,Joshua H. Balsters,Erin E. Hecht,Robert D. Latzman,Kaustubh R. Patil,Charles  R.  E. Wilson,Simon B. Eickoff,Daniel  S. Margulies,Rogier  B. Mars

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117685

IF: 5.7

2021-03-01

NeuroImage

Abstract:Evolution, as we currently understand it, strikes a delicate balance between animals' ancestral history and adaptations to their current niche. Similarities between species are generally considered inherited from a common ancestor whereas observed differences are considered as more recent evolution. Hence comparing species can provide insights into the evolutionary history. Comparative neuroimaging has recently emerged as a novel subdiscipline, which uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify similarities and differences in brain structure and function across species. Whereas invasive histological and molecular techniques are superior in spatial resolution, they are laborious, post-mortem, and oftentimes limited to specific species. Neuroimaging, by comparison, has the advantages of being applicable across species and allows for fast, whole-brain, repeatable, and multi-modal measurements of the structure and function in living brains and post-mortem tissue. In this review, we summarise the current state of the art in comparative anatomy and function of the brain and gather together the main scientific questions to be explored in the future of the fascinating new field of brain evolution derived from comparative neuroimaging.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,neurosciences,neuroimaging
Philosophical Primatology: Reflections on Theses of Anthropological Difference, the Logic of Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial, and the Self-other Category Mistake Within the Scope of Cognitive Primate Research

Hannes Wendler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00337-3

2019-12-17

Biological Theory

Abstract:This article investigates the deep-rooted logical structures underlying our thinking about other animals with a particular focus on topics relevant for cognitive primate research. We begin with a philosophical propaedeutic that makes perspicuous how we are to differentiate ontological from epistemological considerations regarding primates, while also accounting for the many perplexities that will undoubtedly be encountered upon applying this difference to concrete phenomena. Following this, we give an account of what is to be understood by the assertion of a thesis of anthropological difference, identifying, inter alia, a property that fulfils the exclusivity, universality, and constitution criteria and demarcates the <i>differentia specifica</i> between humans and other animals. Also, we systematically develop how such theses can be formulated more moderately. Furthermore, we account for different theoretical frameworks, argumentative schemes, and sociological factors whose employment is associated with theses as such. This endeavor is carried out under the guise of anthropomorphism and anthropodenial. Doing so, we show that both are favored by the logic of cognitive primate research. Put briefly, concepts like cladistic parsimony and arguments by analogy favor anthropomorphism whereas concepts like traditional parsimony and Morgan's canon favor anthropodenial. We close by framing these topics in the light of the self-other category mistake that lies in ascribing exclusive self-properties to some other. Lastly, we probe this category mistake for potency and scope of implications and find it to be central to and unavoidably ingrained in our thinking about other animals.
Bayesian data analysis.

J. Kruschke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.72

2010-09-01

Abstract:Bayesian methods have garnered huge interest in cognitive science as an approach to models of cognition and perception. On the other hand, Bayesian methods for data analysis have not yet made much headway in cognitive science against the institutionalized inertia of 20th century null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Ironically, specific Bayesian models of cognition and perception may not long endure the ravages of empirical verification, but generic Bayesian methods for data analysis will eventually dominate. It is time that Bayesian data analysis became the norm for empirical methods in cognitive science. This article reviews a fatal flaw of NHST and introduces the reader to some benefits of Bayesian data analysis. The article presents illustrative examples of multiple comparisons in Bayesian analysis of variance and Bayesian approaches to statistical power. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Computer Science,Medicine,Psychology
How to make any method "fail": BAMM at the kangaroo court of false equivalency

Daniel L Rabosky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.03253

2017-11-09

Abstract:The software program BAMM has been widely used to study the dynamics of speciation, extinction, and phenotypic evolution on phylogenetic trees. The program implements a model-based clustering algorithm to identify clades that share common macroevolutionary rate dynamics and to estimate rate parameters. A recent simulation study published in Evolution (2017) by Meyer and Wiens (M&W) claimed that (i) simple ("MS") estimators of diversification rates perform much better than BAMM, and (ii) evolutionary rates inferred with BAMM are weakly correlated with the true rates in the generating model. I demonstrate that their assessment suffers from two major conceptual errors that invalidate both primary conclusions. These statistical considerations are not specific to BAMM and apply to all methods for estimating parameters from empirical data where the true grouping structure of the data is unknown. First, M&Wś comparisons between BAMM and MS estimators suffer from false equivalency because the MS estimators are given perfect prior knowledge of the locations of rate shifts on the simulated phylogenies. BAMM is given no such information and must simultaneously estimate the number and location of rate shifts from the data, thus resulting in a massive degrees-of-freedom advantage for the MS <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://estimators.When" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> both methods are given equivalent information, BAMM dramatically outperforms the MS estimators. Second, M&Wś experimental design is unable to assess parameter reliability because their analyses conflate small effect sizes across treatment groups with error in parameter estimates. Nearly all model-based frameworks for partitioning data are susceptible to the statistical mistakes in M&W, including popular clustering algorithms in population genetics, phylogenetics, and comparative methods.

Quantitative Methods,Populations and Evolution
Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

Michèle N. Schubiger,Claudia Fichtel,Judith M. Burkart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01835

IF: 3.8

2020-08-31

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Comparative psychology assesses cognitive abilities and capacities of non-human animals and humans. Based on performance differences and similarities in various species in cognitive tests, it is inferred how their minds work and reconstructed how cognition might have evolved. Critically, such species comparisons are only valid and meaningful if the tasks truly capture individual and inter-specific variation in cognitive abilities rather than contextual variables that might affect task performance. Unlike in human test psychology, however, cognitive tasks for non-human primates (and most other animals) have been rarely evaluated regarding their measurement validity. We review recent studies that address how non-cognitive factors affect performance in a set of commonly used cognitive tasks, and if cognitive tests truly measure individual variation in cognitive abilities. We find that individual differences in emotional and motivational factors primarily affect performance via attention. Hence, it is crucial to systematically control for attention during cognitive tasks to obtain valid and reliable results. Aspects of test design, however, can also have a substantial effect on cognitive performance. We conclude that non-cognitive factors are a minor source of measurement error if acknowledged and properly controlled for. It is essential, however, to validate and eventually re-design several primate cognition tasks in order to ascertain that they capture the cognitive abilities they were designed to measure. This will provide a more solid base for future cognitive comparisons within primates but also across a wider range of non-human animal species.

psychology, multidisciplinary
When less is more in living systems: subtractive cognitive biases and life science learning

Ross H. Nehm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2024.2320106

2024-03-07

Journal of Biological Education

Abstract:This commentary introduces additive and subtractive transformations as foundational human cognitive biases and proposes possible links to biological reasoning challenges in both novices and experts. These cognitive biases deserve more attention in biology and biology education given possible links to previously documented misconceptions, expert expectations, and student learning challenges. More educational attention (e.g. curriculum cases, pedagogical approaches) directed at subtractive biological transformations could serve as a novel conceptual framework for (i) uniting a series of deeply rooted learning challenges (e.g. 'great chain of being', teleological reasoning) and (ii) inducing cognitive dissonance about hard-to-access reasoning processes about the living world.

biology,education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines
Brain structure and function: a multidisciplinary pipeline to study hominoid brain evolution

Angela D. Friederici,Roman M. Wittig,Alfred Anwander,Cornelius Eichner,Tobias Gräßle,Carsten Jäger,Evgeniya Kirilina,Ilona Lipp,Ariane Düx,Luke J. Edwards,Cédric Girard-Buttoz,Anna Jauch,Kathrin S. Kopp,Michael Paquette,Kerrin J. Pine,Steve Unwin,Daniel B. M. Haun,Fabian H. Leendertz,Richard McElreath,Markus Morawski,Philipp Gunz,Nikolaus Weiskopf,Catherine Crockford,EBC Consortium,Daniel Ashoff,Karoline Albig,Bala Amarasekaran,Sam Angedakin,Alfred Anwander,Caroline Asiimwe,Christian Bock,Birgit Blazey,Andreas Bernhard,Jacinta C Beehner,Laurent Bailanda,Raphael Belais,Thore J Bergman,Denny Böttcher,Tatiana Bortolato,Penelope Carlier,Julian Chantrey,Catherine Crockford,Daniela Denk,Tobias Deschner,Ariane Düx,Luke J. Edwards,Cornelius Eichner,Dag Encke,Gelardine Escoubas,Malak Ettaj,Pawel Fedurek,Karina Flores,Alejandra Romero Florero,Richard Franke,Angela D Friederici,Cedric Girard-Buttoz,Jorge Gomez Fortun,Tobias Gräßle,Eva Gruber-Dujardin,Philipp Gunz,Susan Hambrecht,Florian Hansmann,Jess Hartel,Daniel BM Haun,Michael Henshall,Catherine Hobaiter,Noémie Hofman,Jennifer E Jaffe,Carsten Jäger,Anna Jauch,Stomy Karhemere,Evgenya Kirilina,Robert Klopfleisch,Tobias Knauf-Witzens,Kathrin Kopp,Bastian Lange,Kevin E Langergraber,Arne Lawrenz,Kevin Lee,Fabian H Leendertz,Illona Lipp,Matyas Liptovszky,Christelle Patricia Lumbu,Patrice Makouloutou Nzassi,Guy Landry Mamboundou Kouima,Kerstin Mätz-Rensing,Richard McElreath,Zoltan Mezö,Fanny Minesi,Sophie Moittie,Torsten Møller,Markus Morawski,Dave Morgan,Mathias Müller,Timothy Mugabe,Martin Muller,Karin Olofsson-Sannö,Alain Ondzie,Emily Otali,Michael Paquette,Simone Pika,Kerrin J. Pine,Andrea Pizarro,Kamilla Pleh,Sandra Reichler-Danielowski,Jessica Rendel,Martha M Robbins,Konstantin Ruske,Liran Samuni,Crickette Sanz,Jan Schinköthe,André Schüle,Ingo Schwabe,Katarina Schwalm,Anistan Sebastiampillai,Lara Southern,Sheri Speede,Jonas Steiner,Mark F Stidworthy,Martin Surbeck,Claudia A. Szentiks,Tanguy Tanga,Tobias Loubser Theron,Reiner Ulrich,Steve Unwin,Erica van de Waal,Sue Walker,Nikolaus Weiskopf,Gudrun Wibbelt,Navena Widulin,Hermann Will,Roman M Wittig,Kim Wood,Emiliano Zaccarella,Klaus Zuberbühler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2023.1299087

2024-01-09

Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience

Abstract:To decipher the evolution of the hominoid brain and its functions, it is essential to conduct comparative studies in primates, including our closest living relatives. However, strong ethical concerns preclude in vivo neuroimaging of great apes. We propose a responsible and multidisciplinary alternative approach that links behavior to brain anatomy in non-human primates from diverse ecological backgrounds. The brains of primates observed in the wild or in captivity are extracted and fixed shortly after natural death, and then studied using advanced MRI neuroimaging and histology to reveal macro- and microstructures. By linking detailed neuroanatomy with observed behavior within and across primate species, our approach provides new perspectives on brain evolution. Combined with endocranial brain imprints extracted from computed tomographic scans of the skulls these data provide a framework for decoding evolutionary changes in hominin fossils. This approach is poised to become a key resource for investigating the evolution and functional differentiation of hominoid brains.

behavioral sciences,neurosciences
Evaluation and treatment of families at the Fort Logan Mental Health Center

Paul Jarvis,J. Esty,L. Stutzman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419797

1969-02-01

Community Mental Health Journal

Abstract:
Life History Is a Major Source of Adaptive Individual and Species Differences: a Critical Commentary on Zietsch and Sidari (2020)

Michael A. Woodley of Menie,Severi Luoto,Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre,Matthew A. Sarraf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-021-00280-2

2021-04-08

Evolutionary Psychological Science

Abstract:Zietsch and Sidari (2020) argue that life history theory does not offer an appropriate model for understanding inter-individual trait covariation. We examine in great detail four major claims of Zietsch and Sidari’s critique of life history theory as an explanation of inter-individual covariation among phenotypic, especially psychometric, traits. We review relevant theoretical and empirical research overlooked by Zietsch and Sidari and conduct reanalyses of comparative cross-species “pace-of-life” and human behaviour-genetic data. Our results challenge their arguments concerning (a) the implications for life history theory of the absence of individual-differences-level covariation in a variety of species and (b) the genetic aetiology of psychometric life history covariance. None of the four major claims made by Zietsch and Sidari withstand close scrutiny. Critiques of life history theory, such as the one developed by Zietsch and Sidari, should (if they are to be more persuasive) show what alternative theory might be at least as successful as life history theory in consiliently and parsimoniously explaining patterns of covariation among various traits within and between species, including the predictable absence of such covariation among certain traits. Evolutionary life history theory—as applied to non-human animals and humans—offers one of the broadest and empirically best-supported frameworks for understanding individual differences in physiology, cognition, behaviour, reproduction, and other traits and life outcomes.

[Indications and technic of cryotherapy of hemorrhoids].

Fallacies in Neuroscience: The Alzheimer's Edition

The Comparative Method in Cross-Cultural and Cross-Species Research

Exploration, inference and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine

Phylogenetic Comparison on Cognition: Advances in Evolutionary Psychology

A tale of too many trees: a conundrum for phylogenetic regression

Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not “One Cognition”

Dispelling five myths about hypothesis testing in biological systematics

The same analysis approach: Practical protection against the pitfalls of novel neuroimaging analysis methods

Why are there so many explanations for primate brain evolution?

NeuroComparatives: Neuro-Symbolic Distillation of Comparative Knowledge

The Biology and Evolution of the Three Psychological Tendencies to Anthropomorphize Biology and Evolution

Imaging evolution of the primate brain: the next frontier?

Philosophical Primatology: Reflections on Theses of Anthropological Difference, the Logic of Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial, and the Self-other Category Mistake Within the Scope of Cognitive Primate Research

Bayesian data analysis.

How to make any method "fail": BAMM at the kangaroo court of false equivalency

Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

When less is more in living systems: subtractive cognitive biases and life science learning

Brain structure and function: a multidisciplinary pipeline to study hominoid brain evolution

Evaluation and treatment of families at the Fort Logan Mental Health Center

Life History Is a Major Source of Adaptive Individual and Species Differences: a Critical Commentary on Zietsch and Sidari (2020)