ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study explores the hypothesis that the anatomical bone structures of the oral cavity have probably evolved under the influence of language function. The possible changes have been evaluated by comparing two close species essentially differentiated from each other by spoken language. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty dry skulls and 20 mandibles of modern Caucasians were compared with 12 dry skulls and 12 mandibles of chimpanzees, with the analysis of 37 variables and the definition of new anatomical parameters.
resultsA number of highly significant differences were found between humans and chimpanzees. The human temporomandibular joint is comparatively less flat and has a more limited excursive movement range, with structural elements that seem to be lighter. A significant difference is noted in mandibular alveolar vergency and in the internal slope of the mandibular symphysis where the oral cavity's morphology is modified, thereby increasing the free space for tongue movements in humans. The chin, which is unique to the human species, is quantified through the external slope of the mandibular symphysis with a lesser angle in humans. DISCUSSION: It is obvious that there are differences between humans and chimpanzees in the bone morphology of the oral cavity structures. This has been confirmed with the analysis of new variables. Together with other factors (bipedalism, habits, and genetics) speech in humans must have played an important role in the aforementioned differences between humans and chimpanzees. The number of mandibular movements involved in speech is far greater than those used in chewing, which must have conditioned the evolution of the oral structures implicated in the development of language. On average, humans weigh 70 kg and chimpanzees 44 kg. However, the majority of the variables studied in skulls and mandibles are greater in chimpanzees, which suggests that the evolution of the oral zone in humans has suffered a reduction in size with changes in shape. The refinement of the supralaryngeal vocal tract in the human species must have co-evolved with speech fairly recently. The human skull has temporomandibular joints that are comparatively less flat with a more limited movement. There is a greater lingual space and there is also a chin that suggests a muscular stimulant. This leads to the conclusion that, at least in part, speech is behind all these changes, although it is difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.