| Abstract: | Cognition presents evolutionary research with one of its greatest challenges. Cognitive evolution has been explained at the proximate level by shifts in absolute and relative brain volume and at the ultimate level by differences in social and dietary complexity. However, no study has integrated the experimental and phylogenetic approach at the scale required to rigorously test these explanations. Instead, previous research has largely relied on various measures of brain size as proxies for cognitive abilities. We experimentally evaluated these major evolutionary explanations by quantitatively comparing the cognitive performance of 567 individuals representing 36 species on two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that absolute brain volume best predicted performance across species and accounted for considerably more variance than brain volume controlling for body mass. This result corroborates recent advances in evolutionary neurobiology and illustrates the cognitive consequences of cortical reorganization through increases in brain volume. Within primates, dietary breadth but not social group size was a strong predictor of species differences in self-control. Our results implicate robust evolutionary relationships between dietary breadth, absolute brain volume, and self-control. These findings provide a significant first step toward quantifying the primate cognitive phenome and explaining the process of cognitive evolution.Since Darwin, understanding the evolution of cognition has been widely regarded as one of the greatest challenges for evolutionary research (1). Although researchers have identified surprising cognitive flexibility in a range of species (2–40) and potentially derived features of human psychology (41–61), we know much less about the major forces shaping cognitive evolution (62–71). With the notable exception of Bitterman’s landmark studies conducted several decades ago (63, 72–74), most research comparing cognition across species has been limited to small taxonomic samples (70, 75). With limited comparable experimental data on how cognition varies across species, previous research has largely relied on proxies for cognition (e.g., brain size) or metaanalyses when testing hypotheses about cognitive evolution (76–92). The lack of cognitive data collected with similar methods across large samples of species precludes meaningful species comparisons that can reveal the major forces shaping cognitive evolution across species, including humans (48, 70, 89, 93–98).To address these challenges we measured cognitive skills for self-control in 36 species of mammals and birds ( and Tables S1–S4) tested using the same experimental procedures, and evaluated the leading hypotheses for the neuroanatomical underpinnings and ecological drivers of variance in animal cognition. At the proximate level, both absolute (77, 99–107) and relative brain size (108–112) have been proposed as mechanisms supporting cognitive evolution. Evolutionary increases in brain size (both absolute and relative) and cortical reorganization are hallmarks of the human lineage and are believed to index commensurate changes in cognitive abilities (52, 105, 113–115). Further, given the high metabolic costs of brain tissue (116–121) and remarkable variance in brain size across species (108, 122), it is expected that the energetic costs of large brains are offset by the advantages of improved cognition. The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains—and concomitant cortical reorganization—was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution (77, 91, 100–106, 120). In contrast, the encephalization hypothesis argues that an increase in brain volume relative to body size was of primary importance (108, 110, 111, 123). Both of these hypotheses have received support through analyses aggregating data from published studies of primate cognition and reports of “intelligent” behavior in nature—both of which correlate with measures of brain size (76, 77, 84, 92, 110, 124).Open in a separate windowA phylogeny of the species included in this study. Branch lengths are proportional to time except where long branches have been truncated by parallel diagonal lines (split between mammals and birds ∼292 Mya).With respect to selective pressures, both social and dietary complexities have been proposed as ultimate causes of cognitive evolution. The social intelligence hypothesis proposes that increased social complexity (frequently indexed by social group size) was the major selective pressure in primate cognitive evolution (6, 44, 48, 50, 87, 115, 120, 125–141). This hypothesis is supported by studies showing a positive correlation between a species’ typical group size and the neocortex ratio (80, 81, 85–87, 129, 142–145), cognitive differences between closely related species with different group sizes (130, 137, 146, 147), and evidence for cognitive convergence between highly social species (26, 31, 148–150). The foraging hypothesis posits that dietary complexity, indexed by field reports of dietary breadth and reliance on fruit (a spatiotemporally distributed resource), was the primary driver of primate cognitive evolution (151–154). This hypothesis is supported by studies linking diet quality and brain size in primates (79, 81, 86, 142, 155), and experimental studies documenting species differences in cognition that relate to feeding ecology (94, 156–166).Although each of these hypotheses has received empirical support, a comparison of the relative contributions of the different proximate and ultimate explanations requires (i) a cognitive dataset covering a large number of species tested using comparable experimental procedures; (ii) cognitive tasks that allow valid measurement across a range of species with differing morphology, perception, and temperament; (iii) a representative sample within each species to obtain accurate estimates of species-typical cognition; (iv) phylogenetic comparative methods appropriate for testing evolutionary hypotheses; and (v) unprecedented collaboration to collect these data from populations of animals around the world (70).Here, we present, to our knowledge, the first large-scale collaborative dataset and comparative analysis of this kind, focusing on the evolution of self-control. We chose to measure self-control—the ability to inhibit a prepotent but ultimately counterproductive behavior—because it is a crucial and well-studied component of executive function and is involved in diverse decision-making processes (167–169). For example, animals require self-control when avoiding feeding or mating in view of a higher-ranking individual, sharing food with kin, or searching for food in a new area rather than a previously rewarding foraging site. In humans, self-control has been linked to health, economic, social, and academic achievement, and is known to be heritable (170–172). In song sparrows, a study using one of the tasks reported here found a correlation between self-control and song repertoire size, a predictor of fitness in this species (173). In primates, performance on a series of nonsocial self-control control tasks was related to variability in social systems (174), illustrating the potential link between these skills and socioecology. Thus, tasks that quantify self-control are ideal for comparison across taxa given its robust behavioral correlates, heritable basis, and potential impact on reproductive success.In this study we tested subjects on two previously implemented self-control tasks. In the A-not-B task (27 species, n = 344), subjects were first familiarized with finding food in one location (container A) for three consecutive trials. In the test trial, subjects initially saw the food hidden in the same location (container A), but then moved to a new location (container B) before they were allowed to search (Movie S1). In the cylinder task (32 species, n = 439), subjects were first familiarized with finding a piece of food hidden inside an opaque cylinder. In the following 10 test trials, a transparent cylinder was substituted for the opaque cylinder. To successfully retrieve the food, subjects needed to inhibit the impulse to reach for the food directly (bumping into the cylinder) in favor of the detour response they had used during the familiarization phase (Movie S2).Thus, the test trials in both tasks required subjects to inhibit a prepotent motor response (searching in the previously rewarded location or reaching directly for the visible food), but the nature of the correct response varied between tasks. Specifically, in the A-not-B task subjects were required to inhibit the response that was previously successful (searching in location A) whereas in the cylinder task subjects were required to perform the same response as in familiarization trials (detour response), but in the context of novel task demands (visible food directly in front of the subject). |
