4.3 Article

Age-related changes of digital endocranial volume during human ontogeny: Results from an osteological reference collection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 147, 期 2, 页码 312-318

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21655

关键词

CT scans; endocranial volume; growth and development; ontogeny; osteological collection

资金

  1. French CNRS
  2. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endocranial volume (EV) estimation is widely used in physical anthropology for assessing brain size differences between taxa and monitoring the emergence of brain growth patterns in modern humans. However, to date, no reference data are available for modern human EV ontogeny. We measured 94 skulls with known sex and age (ranging from 0 to 7.5 years) from the osteological collection of Strasbourg University (OCSU) by using an accurate digital active contour model algorithm on 3D virtual models, reconstructed by CT. The OCSU data also allow us to propose improved equations for estimating EV in immature individuals from dry skull diameters (length, width, and height). Aside from the EV, the average proportional endocranial volume (PEV), corresponding to the ratio of EV at a given age to the average EV in the corresponding adult population, was also computed. EV nearly doubles during the first year of life, and later continues to expand more slowly, at least until 7 years of age. No sex differences can be demonstrated between the EV distributions of boys and girls in this sample. However, although PEV at birth is identical in girls and boys, it later displays significantly higher values in the girls of our series. PEV obtained at birth is 22%, which is quite different from values established for the brain itself from autopsied individuals, or MRI data. This suggests that assessments of EV and PEV values in fossil specimens should be conducted by using identical measures in comparative samples of extant humans and apes. Am J Phys Anthropol 147:312318, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据