Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40366110›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Look past the cooperative eye hypothesis: reconsidering the evolution of human eye appearance.

Juan Olvido Perea-García, Aurora Teuben, Kai R Caspar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Juan Olvido Perea-García *Center for Language Evolution Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Fosa Staromiejska 3, Toruń, 87-100, Poland.
Aurora TeubenUniversity of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, Amsterdam, 1098 XH, The Netherlands.
Kai R Caspar *Institute of Cell Biology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, Düsseldorf, D-40225, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2112-1050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The external appearance of the human eye has been prominently linked to the evolution of complex sociocognitive functions in our species. The cooperative eye hypothesis (CEH) proposes that human eyeballs, with their weakly expressed conjunctival and scleral pigmentation, are uniquely conspicuous and evolved under selective pressures to behave cooperatively, therefore signalling attentiveness to conspecifics. Non-human primates are instead assumed to display less-salient eye morphologies that help mask their gaze to facilitate competitive, rather than cooperative actions. Here, we argue that the CEH, although continuing to be influential, lacks robust empirical support. Over the past two decades, multidisciplinary research has undermined its original rationale and central premises: human eye pigmentation does not uniquely stand out among primates, it is not uniform at species level and the available evidence does not conclusively suggest that it facilitates gaze following to notable extents. Hence, the CEH currently provides a theoretical framework that risks confusing, rather than informing, inferences about the evolution of human external eye appearance and its selective drivers. In a call to move past it, we review alternative hypotheses with the potential to elucidate the emergence of the human ocular phenotype from the considerable spectrum of diversity found within the primate order.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEyeAnimalsHumansPrimatescommunicationconjunctivaintraspecific variationphotoprotectionpigmentationprimatessclera

Identifiers

PMID40366110
PMCPMC12407056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.