Schematic view of two evolutionary stages of vertebrate central nervous system
Schematic view of two evolutionary stages of vertebrate central nervous system

Evolutionary Thinking: a New Perspective on How Our Brains Control Behavior Takes Evolution into Account

Center for Neuroscience Professor W. Martin Usrey's article published in Neuron

We watch a ball as it falls into our glove. We hear a strange sound in another part of the house and listen intently. In neuroscience, the act of narrowing our senses in response to an environmental event is called “attention,” and it is understood that when we attend to a stimulus, we lose the ability to focus on other surrounding inputs.

Dr. W. Martin Usrey
W. Martin Usrey, PhD

“The explanation that the neuroscience community gives for this—the textbook answer—is that we have limited cognitive mechanisms,” said W. Martin Usrey, Professor and Chair of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior at UC Davis and Professor of Neurology at UC Davis School of Medicine, “and we have to distribute those to certain areas because there is an inherent limitation to what the cortex can do.”

But is the cortex itself inherently limited? And if so, why would this be? Assuming we evolve to better survive our environments, wouldn’t it be more useful, for example, for a mouse to be able to focus on both the owl in the sky and the rustling in the grass at the same time and with equal power?

These questions are at the heart of a recent perspective published on July 22, 2021, in Neuron, by Usrey and UChicago Maurice Goldblatt Professor of Neurobiology, S. Murray Sherman.

“With the big cerebral cortex that we have, one question that's always bothered Murray and me is why we can’t heighten our awareness of everything,” said Usrey. “The cortex has this incredible computational power. Why can't all areas be heightened at once? Why diminish one region so that another area can be enhanced?”

Now, Sherman and Usrey argue that our inability to focus our attention on all stimuli at once is not due to a limitation in the cortex itself, but is a product of the physical constraints in which it must operate. In other words, Sherman and Usrey suggest that attention as we know it is a direct consequence of the way our brain’s structure has evolved.

The cortex and evolution

In all mammals, including humans, the brain is composed of numerous components that reflect its evolutionary heritage, and the most recent component is the cerebral cortex, which is particularly large and well-developed in humans. Exceptionally intricate, the cortex contains tens of billions of interconnected neurons throughout its six distinct layers, and it underlies all of our conscious perceptions and abstract thought. Importantly, the cortex functions by interacting and cooperating with these evolutionary older bits.

“It's almost like you can see the history, like geologists see when they look at layers of sediment,” described Sherman. “In the brain, most of the old circuits are still there and functioning—you add things on, but you don't throw away the old stuff.”

“The cortex, which is the pinnacle of our evolution as far as the brain is concerned, doesn’t generally have direct access to our motor neurons to control behavior,” said Sherman. “It has to go through all these old circuits. And in doing that, it has to play nice with all the old circuits that are trying to control behavior at the same time.”

In order to affect behavior, the cortex must send signals through the older, well-established subcortical regions. This represents a bottleneck in the flow of signals originating in the cortex, and these subcortical structures cannot function properly if all cortical area simultaneously tried to control them. .

“If all cortical areas tried to take control of these subcortical structures without anything to judge what’s best, you’d have utter chaos,” said Sherman.

Not only are there physical constraints to funneling large amounts of information through smaller regions, but without any prioritization of signals, we might receive contradictory information.

“Image if your visual cortical areas tell you to go left and the auditory areas tell you to go right,” explained Sherman.

What we call attention, then, Sherman and Usrey suggest, is the prioritization the brain must employ to permit only appropriate cortical areas at any time to dominate subcortical routes to behavior. This prioritization is required due to the very process of evolution that produced cortex.

“It's the filtering,” said Sherman, “to determine which cortical areas or subcortical areas at any given time are going to take control of behavior, which we now think we recognize as attention.”

Evolution is not an engineer

If attention as we know it is a product of our brain’s structural evolution, as Sherman and Usrey argue, why did it evolve this way? Why didn’t we evolve to be able to focus on all environmental stimuli at once?

“An engineer building something as complex as the brain might go through a number of different stages, said Sherman, “and when a better way of doing something is developed, the old way might be thrown out. But evolution doesn’t work that way.”

As Sherman and Usrey say in their article, “evolution is messy.” It doesn’t scrap the whole thing and start fresh when things get complicated. Instead, we change by building upon and adapting what already exists. Although we are always evolving to become better suited for our environments, that evolution is constrained by our current structure and functionality.

In the case of the brain, subcortical structures had already developed circuits for complex motor control. When the cortex subsequently evolved, instead of reproducing all the needed neural circuitry, it took advantage of what was already there.

New ways of thinking

Attention is traditionally seen as a purely cortical mechanism, which is why the “textbook answer” for why we must limit our focus has been that our cortex must have a limited supply of resources to devote. But Sherman and Usrey argue that, because of the context in which it evolved, the cortex does not function on its own.

“We hope to change the way people think about cortical functioning, writ large,” said Sherman. “If you want to understand the brain, I assert you must take evolution into consideration.”

 

This story originally appeared in the University of Chicago's Science Life

 

Primary Category

Tags