Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://cir.cenieh.es/handle/20.500.12136/3156
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBruner, Emiliano-
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-08T11:45:48Z-
dc.date.issued2024-01-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Comparative Neurology, 2024, 532(1), e25583es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0021-9967-
dc.identifier.issn1096-9861-
dc.identifier.urihttps://cir.cenieh.es/handle/20.500.12136/3156-
dc.description.abstractEvolutionary anthropology relies on both neontological and paleontological information. In the latter case, fields such as paleoneurology, neuroarchaeology, and cognitive archaeology are supplying new perspectives in prehistory and neuroscience. Cognitive archaeology, in particular, investigates the behaviors associated with extinct species or cultures according to specific psychological models. For example, changes in working memory, attention, or visuospatial integration can be postulated when related behavioral changes are described in the archaeological record. However, cognition is a process based on different and partially independent functional elements, and extinct species could hence have evolved distinct combinations of cognitive abilities or features, based on both quantitative and qualitative differences. Accordingly, differences in working memory can lead to more conceptual or more holistic mindsets, with important changes in the perception and management of the mental experience. The parietal cortex is particularly interesting, in this sense, being involved in functions associated with body-tool integration, attention, and visual imaging. In some cases, evolutionary mismatches among these elements can induce drawbacks that, despite their positive effects on natural selection, can introduce important constraints in our own mental skills. Beyond the theoretical background, some hypotheses can be tested following methods in experimental psychology. In any case, theories in cognitive evolution must acknowledge that, beyond the brain and its biology, the human mind is also deeply rooted in body perception, in social networks, and in technological extension.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipI would like to thank Verónica Martínez-Cerdeño and Stephen Noctor for the organization of the congress Cortical Evolution 2023. I would also like to express my gratitude to Petra Jelinek, who provided many careful and detailed comments to an early version of this manuscript. Finally, I am also grateful to the many colleagues with whom I have been developing my research and interest in this field, including Fred Coolidge, Tom Wynn, Annapaola Fedato, María Silva-Gago, Duilio Garofoli, and Roberto Colom. This article is supported by the Spanish Government (PID2021-122355NB-C33) and by the Italian Institute of Anthropology (ISITA). I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of Michael Gerard Kenyon, and to the many works we published together. Thanks Mike!es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherWileyes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_ES
dc.subjectAttentiones_ES
dc.subjectCognitive scienceses_ES
dc.subjectExperimental psychologyes_ES
dc.subjectHuman evolutiones_ES
dc.subjectPrehistoryes_ES
dc.subjectVisuospatial integrationes_ES
dc.subjectWorking memoryes_ES
dc.titleCognitive archaeology, and the psychological assessment of extinct mindses_ES
dc.typeArticlees_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cne.25583-
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1002/cne.25583es_ES
dc.date.available2024-02-08T11:45:48Z-
Appears in Collections:Paleobiología

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Cognitive Archeology and the Attentional System An Evolutionary Mismatch for the Genus Homo_Bruner_2023.pdf
  Restricted Access
1.9 MBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.