Advertisement

Leveraging brain–body scaling relationships for comparative studies

  • Daniel J. HorschlerEmail author
  • Evan L. MacLean
Commentary

Abstract

In Horschler et al. (Anim Cognit 22(2):187–198, 2019), we found that two components of executive function (short-term memory and self-control) were strongly associated with estimated absolute brain weight across dog breeds, and argued that dogs present a powerful model for studying evolutionary links between cognition and neuroanatomy due to their extraordinary degree of intraspecific morphological variation. In a commentary on this work, Montgomery (Anim Cognit, 2019) raises concerns about the practice of estimating brain weights from brain–body scaling relationships. Montgomery explores the practical significance of this approach, ultimately concluding that such estimations should be avoided. In this response, we point out some limitations of the analyses presented by Montgomery and consider his conclusions in light of these issues. We then explore the extent to which body weight serves as a valid proxy for brain weight under varying conditions. Through simulations, we show that the consequences of using body weight as a proxy for brain weight depend on parameters including effect size, the correlation between brain and body weight, and the variance in brain and body weight within a sample. Under conditions approximating those in Horschler et al. (Anim Cognit 22(2):187–198, 2019), we find that body weight is a reliable proxy for brain weight, and that statistical results from models using either brain weight or body weight as predictor variables are highly convergent. Nonetheless, we wholeheartedly agree with Montgomery that empirical data on brain weight, structure, and cellular composition will be critical for creating new opportunities to investigate the relationships between neuroanatomy and cognition in dogs.

Keywords

Allometry Body size Brain size Cognition Dogs Breed differences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jeffrey Katz and Debbie Kelly for the opportunity to write this response, as well as to Brian Hare, Josep Call, Juliane Kaminski, Ádám Miklósi, Laurie Santos, Richard Wrangham, David Ivy, Elliot Cohen, Kip Frey, and all other members of the Dognition team. We thank Kevin Doubleday for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper, and Stephen Montgomery for valuable discussion about the original paper as well as this commentary.

References

  1. Benson-Amram S, Dantzer B, Stricker G, Swanson EM, Holekamp KE (2016) Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(9):2532–2537.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505913113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronson RT (1979) Brain weight-body weight scaling in breeds of dogs and cats. Brain Behav Evol 16:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buechel SD, Boussard A, Kotrschal A, van der Bijl W, Kolm N (2017) Brain size affects performance in a reversal-learning test. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger JR, George MA, Leadbetter C, Shaikh F (2019) The allometry of brain size in mammals. J Mammol 100(April):276–283.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyz043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carreira L (2016) Using Bronson equation to accurately predict the dog brain weight based on body weight parameter. Vet Sci 3(4):36.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Deaner RO, Isler K, Burkart J, Van Schaik C (2007) Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates. Brain Behav Evol 70(2):115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000102973 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Healy SD, Krebs JR (1992) Foord storing and the hippocampus in corvids: amount and volume are correlated. Proc R Soc Lond 248:241–245.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1992.0068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hecht E, Smaers J, Dunn W, Kent M, Preuss T, Gutman D (2019) Significant neuroanatomical variation among domestic dog breeds. J Neurosci 39:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herculano-Houzel S (2012) Neuronal scaling rules for primate brains: the primate advantage. Progress in brain research. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 325–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00015-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horschler DJ, Hare B, Call J, Kaminski J, Miklósi Á, MacLean EL (2019) Absolute brain size predicts dog breed differences in executive function. Anim Cogn 22(2):187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-01234-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsu Y, Serpell JA (2003) Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 223(9):1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotrschal A, Rogell B, Bundsen A, Svensson B, Zajitschek S, Brannstrom I, Kolm N (2013) Artificial selection on relative brain size in the guppy reveals costs and benefits of evolving a larger brain. Curr Biol 23:168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kotrschal A, Corral-Lopez A, Amcoff M, Kolm N (2015) A larger brain confers a benefit in a spatial mate search learning task in male guppies. Behav Ecol 26(2):527–532.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru227 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs JR, Sherry DF, Healy SD, Perry VH, Vaccarino AL (1989) Hippocampal specialization of food-storing birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86(4):1388–1392. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2919184%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC286696
  15. MacLean EL, Hare B, Nunn CL, Addessi E, Amici F, Anderson RC, Zhao Y (2014) The evolution of self-control. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(20):E2140–E2148.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323533111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. MacLean EL, Snyder-Mackler NS, vonHoldt BM, Serpell JA (2019) Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behavior. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0716
  17. Montgomery SH (2019) Are brain weights estimated from scaling relationships suitable for comparative studies of animal cognition? Animal Cognit.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01300-2
  18. Overington SE, Morand-Ferron J, Boogert NJ, Lefebvre L (2009) Technical innovations drive the relationship between innovativeness and residual brain size in birds. Anim Behav 78(4):1001–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reader SM, Laland KN (2002) Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(7):4436–4441.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062041299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L (2005) Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(15):5460–5465.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408145102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sol D, Bacher S, Reader SM, Lefebvre L (2008) Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. Am Natural 172:S63–S71.  https://doi.org/10.1086/588304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stewart L, MacLean EL, Ivy D, Woods V, Cohen E, Rodriguez K, Hare B (2015) Citizen science as a new tool in dog cognition research. PLoS One 10(9):1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of AnthropologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Cognitive Science ProgramUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations