"Scientists' brains shrank a bit after an extended stay in Antarctica"

“The effects of isolation and a monotonous environment may be to blame”

I found some footage of the inside of Neumayer-Station III here:

See also:

Maybe someone can find the papers that prove (or disprove) what I believe I read, which is that smaller braines size-wise are not per se worse than larger sized brains, it may even be advantageous. What matters more is mass. Actual loss of any kind of cells found in the brain would be bad.

Both of the decreases could be potentially explained by the lack of socio-emotional variety, but a decrease in size could point in a whole different direction than a decrease in actual mass. From the article I cant clearly take which of the two it is.

I soon start working so I dont have much time to search for where I read that. If someone happens to have such an article, feel free to post :slight_smile:

2 Likes

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4458.epdf

“Loss of volume does not necessarily translate to loss of function,” Elseline Hoekzema, co-lead author of the study and a senior brain scientist at Leiden University in the Netherlands, told CNN. “Sometimes less is more.”

She said that the loss of gray matter could “represent a fine-tuning of synapses into more efficient neural networks.”

2 Likes

Smaller brains are not necessarily worse off than larger brains. I think Neanderthals had larger brains in terms of mass than modern homo sapiens, and I’ve read that women’s brains are smaller sized than men’s brains in general. You don’t need an Albert Einstein sized brain to be considered a genius like he was.

I have also read speculation that an overly large brain in infancy may be correlated with regressive autism.

2 Likes