Brain and Cognition 88 (2014) 2125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Brain and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c

Theoretical Notes

Neuromythology of Einsteins brain

Terence Hines
Psychology Department, Pace University, Pleasantville, NY, United States
Neurology Department, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Accepted 21 April 2014
Available online 14 May 2014
Keywords:
Intelligence
Genius

a b s t r a c t
The idea that the brain of the great physicist Albert Einstein is different from average brains in both
cellular structure and external shape is widespread. This belief is based on several studies examining
Einsteins brain both histologically and morphologically. This paper reviews these studies and nds them
wanting. Their results do not, in fact, provide support for the claim that the structure of Einsteins brain
reects his intellectual abilities.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
No individual human brain has received more detailed analysis
than that of Albert Einstein. Since Einsteins death in 1955 his brain
has been the subject of four published studies looking at variables
from the number of glial cells to the presence or absence of specic
gyri. The secondary commentary on the results of the studies of his
brain has been widespread. This paper will review the ndings of
the published studies, and comment on the logic of the conclusions
that have been drawn from the results of these studies.
The basic story of the saving of Einsteins brain following his
autopsy is well known. Einstein died April 16, 1955 at age 76. He
had requested that his entire body be cremated. Thomas Harvey,
the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, saved the brain
because he thought that it might be of potential scientic value.
Harvey convinced Einsteins son, who had complained that the
brain had been saved, to go along with the preservation
(Isaacson, 2007). Harvey kept the brain for 30 years before the rst
study of its characteristics appeared in the scientic literature.
Since then several studies of the characteristics of Einsteins brain
have been published. These can easily be divided into two separate
categories; those examining the brain microscopically and those
evaluating its patterns of gyri and sulci. These two groups of studies will be considered separately below.
2. Histological studies
Harvey supplied sections of Einsteins brain for the rst published histological analysis. Four sections, one each from the left
and right Brodmanns areas 9 (superior frontal) and 39 (parietal,
E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.04.004
0278-2626/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

angular gyrus) respectively, were examined by Diamond,

Scheibel, Murphy, and Harvey (1985). They concluded that
Einsteins brain was special in that it had a smaller neuron to glial
ratio than control brains. In other words, Einsteins brain had more
glial cells than normal brains. This was based on the nding of a
single signicant difference in the neuron to glial ratio in the left
parietal area.
Hines (1998) criticized Diamond et al.s (1985) conclusions on
several grounds which fell into two general categories, the nature
of the control group and the nature of the statistical analysis performed. In the rst category one problem concerned the differences between Einstein and the control group in terms of age
and socioeconomic circumstances. Einstein died at 76. The average
age of the control group at death was 64 years. The ages at death of
the individuals in the control group ranged from 47 to 80. Further,
the control brains came from patients who died in a Veterans
Administration Hospital. Such patients were very likely to be from
a lower socioeconomic group than Einstein, a factor that might
have affected any differences found. Further, Diamond et al. stated
that none of the control group died from any neurological cause
but this does not mean that they did not have any such disease
at the time of death that could have affected the comparison.
In terms of the statistical analysis, Diamond et al. (1985)
reported four different t-tests, each comparing Einsteins brain to
the brains of the controls. Only one of the four tests performed
was signicant at the .05 level. Although only the results of the
neuron to glial cell ratios were reported by Diamond et al.
(1985), the paper makes it clear that at least six other dependent
measures were examined: (1) number of neurons, (2) total number
of glial cells, (3) number of astrocytes, (4) number of oligodendrocytes, (5) neuron to astrocyte ratio and (6) neuron to oligodendrocyte ratio. Thus a total of seven different dependent measures were

22

T. Hines / Brain and Cognition 88 (2014) 2125

examined in four different brain areas for a total of 28 comparisons. Obviously had any of these other six dependent measures
resulted in signicant differences between Einsteins brain and
the control brains, these would have been reported. One .05 result
out of 28 is not surprising.
A point not made by Hines (1998) but another important problem with the Diamond et al. (1985) study was that the counts of
the various cell types were not made by blinded observers. That
is, the observers were almost certainly aware whether the samples
they were evaluating came from the brain of Einstein or from
brains of control subjects. Such a lack of blinding leaves open the
obvious possibility of observer bias. In fact, in none of the studies
of Einsteins brain, whether histological structure or external morphology was examined, were observers blinded to the identity of
the brains being examined.
In spite of the shortcomings of the Diamond et al. (1985) paper,
it gave rise to what might be thought of as an urban legend that
Einsteins brain had more glial cells than normal brains. This legend is still alive and well even in works by neuroscientists. Thus
Fields (2010) repeats the legend in his otherwise excellent book
on glial cells. He even extends Diamond et al.s nding beyond
what was originally reported. He incorrectly states that a signicant difference between Einsteins brain and control brains in the
number of glial cells was found in all the regions sampled from
Einsteins brain (p. 7).
Kantha (1992) suggested that the nding of a lower neuron/
glial ratio in the left parietal cortex (area 39) could help explain
Einsteins dyslexia. He cited Eccles (1989, p. 121) to the effect that
lesions in Brodmann Area 39 lead to dyslexia. A serious difculty
with this analysis is that the claim that Einstein had dyslexia is
based only on his, and family members, later reminiscences,
which, like all such reminiscences, are of questionable validity.
Further, Kanthas analysis is inconsistent with the overall thrust
of the Diamond et al. (1985) paper which claims that the lower
neuron to glial ratio is responsible for Einsteins greater intellectual
abilities. Kantha argues that this same result is responsible for an
intellectual decit. While parietal lesions can be associated with
acquired dyslexia, it is unclear that, even if the Diamond et al. ndings were real, simply having more glial cells in this area would
lead to dyslexia. It is overt lesions in the area that lead to acquired
dyslexia. Developmental dyslexia, which is what Kantha seems to
believe Einstein suffered from, is not associated with explicit
parietal lesions. Rather, areas of the left occipital and temporal
lobes related to reading, but not the parietal lobe, show functional
abnormalities in developmental dyslexia (Ramus, 2004).
Kantha does recognize that there are problems with the Diamond
et al. (1985) paper in terms of the nature of the control subjects
used.
Anderson and Harvey (1996) examined the density of neurons
in a slice of Einsteins brain from his right prefrontal cortex. They
found that the cortex was thinner in this one slice and that the
number of neurons per square millimeter at the cortical surface
was greater compared to controls. So in this one area of the brain
Einstein did not have more neurons than controls, but the density
of the neurons was greater since they were packed into a smaller
area. The authors speculate that this may have been part of the reason for Einsteins great intellectual abilities because more densely
packed neurons would allow more rapid processing of information.
Kigar, Witelson, Glezer, and Harvey (1997) reported in an
abstract an analysis of cell counts in Einsteins superior temporal
gyrus. There were no differences between Einsteins brain and that
of controls of normal cognitive ability in cortical depth, number
of neurons per cortical column or neuron density. Regarding glial
cells, the proportion of glial cells to neurons was close to unity
for Einstein, which differs from controls (p. 213). No statistical
analyses were reported nor was there information on how the

counts were done and whether they were done blind. No more
lengthy publication describing these results in detail has ever
appeared.
Colombo, Reisin, Miguel-Hidalgo, and Rajkowska (2006) make
two important points in their comments regarding Anderson and
Harvey (1996) and the basic enterprise of examining bits of Einsteins brain to discover the neuroanatomical basis of his intellect.
First, they cite a paper by Selemon, Rajkowska, and Goldman-Rakic
(1998) showing that schizophrenics also have more densely
packed neurons in prefrontal areas. So, even if the results found
by Anderson and Harvey had been real, they would in no way be
an indication of a neuroanatomical basis for superior information
processing. More generally, they point out that the state of Einsteins brain at the time of his death may be quite different than
its state earlier in his life when he was at his intellectual peak.
Anderson and Harvey (1996) reported the results of an analysis
of Einsteins prefrontal cortex. Did the rest of Einsteins brain show
similar differences from the controls? One would expect that this
question could have been answered since Thomas Harvey, the second author on the paper, was the pathologist who had originally
taken Einsteins brain and retained possession of the organ. And,
according to the paper, the question was examined, although the
answer was certainly not explicitly discussed in the paper. On page
163 the authors state Studies performed on Einsteins brain tissue
in the early years after his death were only qualitative, and not
showing any important differences from normal subjects, were
not published (emphasis added). This is an excellent example of
selection bias in publication.
Colombo et al. (2006) carried out their own detailed histological
analysis of the structure of one section of Einsteins cortex. They
examined the parallelism, relative depth and tortuosity of the primate-specic interlaminar glial processes (p. 257). Unfortunately,
it was not stated what part of the brain the samples were taken
from. They compared Einsteins brain to the brains of four controls
more appropriately age matched than those used by Diamond et al.
(1985). These control brains were from patients who died at 67, 69,
70 or 77 years of age and had no known neurological or psychiatric disease (p. 258).
Colombo et al. (2006, p. 259) present their results qualitatively.
They say AEs cerebral cortex tended to show, in average, a more
parallel palisade than the rest of the samples analyzed, although
some variability was present. Overall, it was found that the inclusion of AE cortical samples within the group of aged brains
expanded the morphological diversity of the interlaminar processes of the studied group. Einstein did appear to have greater
tortuosity which could be taken as indirect estimate of astroglial
membrane exposure and, hence, suggest a potential increase in the
local numbers of glial channels and receptors. Further, the moderate increase of immunolabeled astroglial cells in supercial layers that was found in AEs brain were not different from
what can generally be observed in age-matched controls (p. 261).
In summary the three histological studies of Einsteins brain
have, in spite of claims to the contrary, found essentially no differences between his brain and that of controls. This should not come
as any great surprise. The brain is obviously an extremely complex
structure. The areas involved in different cognitive processes are
located throughout the cerebral cortex. To believe that the analyses
of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything
related to the specic cognitive abilities of that brain is nave.
In a paper to be discussed below, Falk, Lepore, and Noe (2012)
report the discovery of 560 microscope slides of various parts of
Einsteins brain. The authors do not present any analyses of these
slides but presumably they will be analyzed in the future. When
this happens, it will be important for future authors reporting
any such analyses to avoid the problems of poor statistical analysis
and selective reporting of only the interesting ndings such as

T. Hines / Brain and Cognition 88 (2014) 2125

seen in the papers of Diamond et al. (1985) and Anderson and

Harvey (1996) noted above.

3. Morphological studies
While the papers described above focused on the microscopic
structure of Einsteins brain, other authors have tried to tie the pattern of gyri and sulci to his intellectual abilities. Witelson, Kigar,
and Harvey (1999) examined pictures of Einsteins intact brain
for differences in the patterns of gyri and sulci that reected his
special intellectual abilities. And they claimed to have found some.
Specically, they argued that Einsteins brain showed a larger
expanse of the inferior parietal lobule and that the full supramarginal gyrus lies behind the Sylvian ssure, undivided by a major
sulcus (p. 2152). The authors argue that this morphological abnormality is related to Einsteins intellectual abilities because it has
been speculated (i.e., Van Essen, 2007) that gyri demark areas of
functionally related cortex (p. 2152) and, thus, Einstein had an
extraordinarily large expanse of highly integrated cortex within a
functional network (p. 2152). The authors examined 91 control
brains and did not nd this type of pattern in any. Further, Einsteins parietal lobes were seen as symmetrical, while normal
brain show an asymmetry with the right lobe being larger than
the left.
In response to Witelson et al. (1999) and Galaburda (1999, p.
1821) opined that Einsteins brain is no exception to the most
common of patterns, since, to my eye, the photographs clearly
show a parietal operculum on the left and then typically posteriorly raising Sylvian ssure on the right. Further, the particular
detailed pattern of gyral folding in the postcentral region of the left
hemisphere is not terribly uncommon. Galaburda notes that the
pattern of Einsteins left parietal lobe is strikingly similar to the
prototypical structure of those area of cortex as illustrated in
Critchleys (1953) famous The Parietal Lobes.
Witelson et al. (1999) replied to Galaburda by arguing that, in
fact, the area Galaburda sees as the left parietal operculum is not
that, but part of the postcentral gyrus.
This argument about anatomical detail shows just how difcult
it can be to arrive at agreement about what might seem to be simple neuroanatomy. Galaburda (1999, p. 1821) recognized this in his
original criticism: the parietal lobe and its component parts in the
developed brain are difcult to approach quantitatively at the
gross anatomical level by virtue of the extreme folding and high
variability in gyral and sucal patterns.
Falk (2009) further analyzed the photographs of Einsteins brain
that Witelson et al. (1999) had examined and found additional differences between Einsteins brain and what might be termed
average brains. There was an unusual knob in the right hemisphere postcentral gyrus. This was interpreted as being due to Einsteins skill at playing the violin since studies of trained musicians
show similar changes in brain morphology (Bangert & Schlaug,
2006). The structure of Einsteins left postcentral gyrus was such
that there may have been an expansion in depth as well as width
in the cortical regions that normally represent face and tongue (p.
3).
Falk (2009) also supported Witelson et al.s (1999) ndings of
differences in Einsteins parietal areas suggesting that these were
due to his superior abilities in visuospatial and mathematical cognition (p. 5). Einsteins brain also had an unusual supercial
cleaving of BA 40 and seamless melding of its rostral portion with
the postcentral gyrus (p. 5). Falk speculated that this could be
associated with his well known delay in acquiring language (p.
5).
More recently Falk et al. (2012) have provided a highly detailed
analysis of the surface morphology of Einsteins brain from newly

23

discovered photographs. These photographs, along with the microscopic slides mentioned above, were donated by the estate of Dr.
Harvey to the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Silver
Spring, Maryland. There they formed an exhibit titled What can
we Learn from a Brain?. The Museum is marketing a special
iPhone app titled Einstein Brain Atlas that allows examination
of the slides.
Falk et al. (2012) compared the morphology of Einsteins brain
to that of normal brains shown in the brain atlases of Connolly
(1950) and Ono, Kubik, and Abernathy (1990). This resulted in dozens of observed differences a slightly longer sulcus here; a
slightly thicker, or thinner, gyrus there; a sulcus that has a different
angle or bifurcates (or does not) when the normal sulcus does not
(or does). These differences spanned the range of rarity from common to very rare and from anatomically minor to more obvious.
Only those differences that were greatest when compared to average brains and/or of presumed functional importance will be
described here.
In the frontal lobes the new pictures conrmed the existence of
a larger knob in the right frontal lobe that corresponds to the
area of motor cortex for the left hand and an enlargement of the
left motor cortex in the areas representing the face. For both hemispheres, Einsteins cortex appears to be highly convoluted around
the midfrontal sulcus in both hemispheres which implies that
volumetrically, his prefrontal association areas may have been
on the high end of the range of variation for humans (p. 1322).
Regarding the parietal lobes, analysis of the new pictures
caused Falk et al. (2012) to revise the position of Falk (2009) and
conclude that Einstein did, in fact, have a left parietal operculum.
There was also a highly unusual feature in the right parietal lobe
such that the united segments of the intraparietal sulcus on the
right side course upward into the superior parietal lobule, rather
than along its inferior border (p. 1318).
While there were several minor differences in the temporal
lobes, none were sufciently unusual or important to merit mention here.
In the occipital lobes there was, on the left, a separate medial
segment of the transverse occipital sulcus and a relatively large
additional transverse occipital sulcus in the right hemisphere.
This unique conguration . . . suggests that the occipital lobes
may be relatively wide near their dorsal rostral border (p.
1319). Further, the medial surface of Einsteins visual cortex is relatively convoluted in both hemispheres compared with normal
brains (p. 1321).
In terms of overall brain shape, Falk et al. (2012, p. 1321) conclude that, contrary to the interpretation of Witelson et al.
(1999), Einsteins brain was neither spherical nor symmetrical.
Falk et al. (2012, p. 1322) explicitly argue that features of the
external neuroanatomy that are associated with specic higher
cognitive functions in humans appear to be especially marked in
Einstein. For example, the authors comment on the extraordinary expansion of the lateral part of Einsteins left primary somatosensory and left primary motor cortices, the face and tongue
areas. They say In this context it is interesting that Einsteins
famously wrote that thinking entailed an association of images
and feelings, and that, for him, the elements of thought were, not
only visual, but also muscular (p. 1322). The fact that Einstein
described his thinking in such a way is interesting. But would
anyone ever have taken that description of his thinking process
and predicted that the motor cortex in his left hemisphere representing his face and tongue would be extraordinarily expanded?
I think the answer is clearly no. This type of post hoc ergo propter
hoc reasoning pervades much of the interpretations of the cognitive correlates of the observed differences in Einsteins brain.
Falk et al. (2012) tie the visualspatial nature of Einsteins
thought processes and his use of gadanken experiments which

24

T. Hines / Brain and Cognition 88 (2014) 2125

involved visual imagery to the highly convoluted features of some

parts of his visual cortex. But one must again point out that it
seems highly unlikely that, given the description of Einsteins use
of visual imagery, anyone would have made a specic prediction
of more convoluted visual areas. And it must be born in mind that
introspections about ones own cognitive processes have dubious
validity (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
It is commonly believed that Einstein was a mathematical genius. Since both the left and right parietal lobes are known to play
important roles in mathematical cognition (see Park, Park, &
Polk, 2013 for a brief review), it may seem reasonable to nd the
neuroanatomical correlate of that genius in the special characteristics of his parietal lobes. In this case both Witelson et al. (1999) and
Falk et al. (2012) make a prediction about the nature of Einsteins
brain based on his supposed cognitive abilities. For example, Falk
et al. say that the hypothesis that Einsteins visuospatial and
mathematical thinking may have been facilitated by extraordinary
parietal substrates is reasonable (p. 1324). However, this hypothesis is based on a common misconception about Einsteins extraordinary mathematical abilities. He was not a great mathematician.
His mathematical abilities were such that he required signicant
help from those more mathematically adept than he was (i.e.,
White & Gribbin, 1994).
If the differences seen in Einsteins brain are not consequences
of his special cognitive skills, what are they due to? The most parsimonious conclusion is that they are the result of random variation in cortical morphology. While all normal brains share a
generally similar pattern of gyri and sulci, it is also clear that the
details of these patterns vary widely between individual brains.
Consider a gedanken experiment in which one compares a normal
brain to 100 or so other brains and specically makes the type of
highly detailed observations of even tiny differences that Falk
et al. (2012) did. There would certainly be differences between
the test brain and the brains illustrated in the atlases. By random
statistical chance there would very likely be a large number of
minor differences and a smaller number of larger differences. If
one believed beforehand that the test brain was that of an individual with some set of special, albeit vaguely dened, cognitive skills
it would be easy to see correlations between those skills and the
morphology of the test brain even if none actually existed. Falk
et al. have not provided any evidence that they have found anything in Einsteins brain other than the expected effects of random
statistical variance on its surface pattern.
The structure of Einsteins corpus callosum has also come under
scrutiny as contributing to his intellectual abilities. Men et al. (in
press) used pictures from the same group of photos used by Falk
et al. (2012). They compared the shape of Einsteins corpus callosum to those of both young and old control brains. They examined
ten different measures of each corpus callosum mean thickness,
middle line length, overall length, overall area, perimeter, circularity, and thickness at the genu, midbody, isthmus and splenium.
When compared with older subjects, who were well matched for
age (mean age 74.2 years compared to Einsteins 76 years), nine
of the ten comparisons resulted in signicant differences. All were
in the direction of Einsteins corpus callosum being larger than that
of the elderly controls. Compared to the young (mean age
26.6 years) controls, there were six signicant differences, with
Einsteins corpus callosum being larger on all of these. Men et al.
(in press, p. 7) interpret their results as showing that Einstein
had more extensive connections between certain parts of his cerebral hemispheres and this is further evidence for a neuroanatomical basis not for an overall greater intelligence but for his
extraordinary spatial imagery and mathematical gifts.
At rst glance the presence of signicant differences on so many
different measures seems impressive. But an important factor
mitigates such an impression. The ten different measures are not

independent. If one part of a corpus callosum is larger (or smaller)

it is highly likely that the other parts will be as well. Men et al. (in
press) made no attempt to control for the intercorrelations
between their ten dependent measures. Further, as noted above,
while Einstein was clearly a genius there is little, if any, evidence
for a specic extraordinary degree of mental imagery ability.
As to his mathematical abilities, it was also noted above that these
were often not up to par with some of his other colleagues in physics at the time.
There is a relationship between anatomical aspects of the corpus callosum and intelligence. Luders et al. (2007) found that the
thickness of the posterior (but not anterior) corpus callosum correlated signicantly with intelligence as measured by the Weschsler
Adult Intelligence Scale. But as noted Men et al. (in press) found
that Einsteins corpus callosum was larger throughout, not just in
the posterior portions. If Einsteins corpus callosum morphology
truly reected his superior intelligence, it would be expected that
size differences would be observed in the posterior, not the anterior, sections. Men et al. have demonstrated that Einstein had a
large corpus callosum. Any claim that this anatomical feature is
related to his intelligence is tenuous at best.

4. Summary and conclusions

In spite of claims to the contrary, when examined carefully,
studies of both the cellular structure of Einsteins brain and its
external morphology have demonstrated nothing that distinguishes it from brains of more intellectually average individuals
or reects his particular intellectual abilities.
One problem with studies that attempt to correlate some aspect
of a single case with a population variable, such as the size, shape
or inter structure of some brain area with some aspect of intelligence, is that there is no variance in a single case. Without variance
one cannot observe a relationship even if one happens to be present in the population. For example, there are anatomical differences in both gray matter and white matter between bilinguals
and monolinguals (see Garcia-Penton, Fernandez, Iturria-Medina,
Gillon-Downes, and Carreras (2014) for a brief review). In their
own study Garcia-Penton et al. used diffusion tensor imaging and
found further anatomical differences in the brain depending on
whether the subjects were bilingual or monolingual. Several of
these differences, such as those in the left superior and inferior
frontal gyri, were differences that Falk et al. (2012) attributed to
Einsteins genius. But Einstein was a bilingual who used German
and English throughout his life. The point is not that the differences
in these areas are due to Einsteins bilingualism rather than his
genius. The differences, as has been argued here, are an artifact
of the method of examination used by Falk et al. But even if the differences were real, it would be impossible to attribute them to
genius, bilingualism or something else because there is only one
Einstein brain.
Humans have a well known bias to see illusory patterns and differences where none exist, especially when such are expected
(Hines, 2003). Such biases, combined with improper statistical procedures and selective reporting, easily account for the reported but
illusory ndings in the Einstein brain literature. Given the discovery of over 300 slides of Einsteins brain tissue it is likely that additional studies, at least of the cellular structure of his brain, will
appear in the future. Any future studies need to use more rigorous
methodologies and statistical analyses than those used in the studies described above to avoid conrmation and other sources of
bias. For example, qualied but blinded observers could be asked
to distinguish between microscope slides of Einsteins brain and
average brains. If there are actual differences, such an experimental methodology would reveal them. For now, the concluding

T. Hines / Brain and Cognition 88 (2014) 2125

sentence of Galaburdas (1999, p. 1821) critique of Witelson et al.

(1999) is as true today as it was when it was written:
The search for gross anatomical markers of greatness will go on,
I am sure, but I suspect that it will continue to be as unproductive as it has been in the past.
References
Anderson, B., & Harvey, T. (1996). Alterations in cortical thickness and neuronal
density in the frontal cortex of Albert Einstein. Neuroscience Letters, 210,
161164.
Bangert, M., & Schlaug, G. (2006). Specialization of the specialized features of
external brain morphology. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 18321834.
Colombo, J. A., Reisin, H. D., Miguel-Hidalgo, J. J., & Rajkowska, G. (2006). Cerebral
cortex astroglia and the brain of a genius: A propos of A. Einstein. Brain Research
Reviews, 52, 257263.
Connolly, J. C. (1950). External morphology of the primate brain. Springeld, IL: C.C.
Thomas.
Critchley, M. (1953). The parietal lobes. London: Arnold.
Diamond, M. C., Scheibel, A. B., Murphy, G. M., & Harvey, T. (1985). On the brain of a
scientist: Albert Einstein. Experimental Neurology, 88, 198204.
Eccles, J. C. (1989). Evolution of the brain. Creation of the self. London: Routledge.
Falk, D. (2009). New information about Albert Einsteins brain. Frontiers in
Evolutionary Neuroscience, 1, 3.
Falk, D., Lepore, F. E., & Noe, A. (2012). The cerebral cortex of Albert Einstein: A
description and preliminary analysis of unpublished photographs. Brain, 136,
13041327.
Fields, R. D. (2010). Second brain. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Galaburda, A. M. (1999). Albert Einsteins brain. The Lancet, 354, 1821.
Garcia-Penton, L., Fernandez, A. P., Iturria-Medina, Y., Gillon-Downes, M., &
Carreras, M. (2014). Anatomical connectivity changes in the bilingual brain.
NeuroImage, 84, 495504.

25

Hines, T. M. (1998). Further on Einsteins brain. Experimental Neurology, 150,

343344.
Hines, T. M. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kantha, S. S. (1992). Albert Einsteins dyslexia and the signicance of Brodmann
area 39 of his left cerebral cortex. Medical Hypotheses, 37, 119122.
Kigar, D. L., Witelson, S. F., Glezer, I. I., & Harvey, T. (1997). Estimates of cell number
in temporal neocortex in the brain of Albert Einstein. Society for Neuroscience.
Abstracts, 23, 213. 89.8.
Luders, E., Narr, K. L., Bilder, R. M., Thompson, P. M., Szeszko, P. R., Hamilton, L., et al.
(2007). Positive correlations between corpus callosum thickness and
intelligence. NeuroImage, 37, 14571464.
Men, W., Falk, D., Sun, T., Chen, W., Li, J., & Yin, D., et al. (in press). The corpus
callosum of Albert Einsteins brain: Another clue to his high intelligence? Brain
137.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports
on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259.
Ono, M., Kubik, S., & Abernathy, C. D. (1990). Atlas of the cerebral sulci. New York:
Thieme Medical Publishers.
Park, J., Park, D. C., & Polk, T. A. (2013). Parietal connectivity in numerical cognition.
Cerebral Cortex, 23, 21272135.
Ramus, F. (2004). Neural basis of reading acquisition. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.),
Cognitive neurosciences III (pp. 815824). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selemon, L. D., Rajkowska, G., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1998). Elevated neuronal
density in prefrontal area 46 in brains from schizophrenic patients: Application
of a three-dimensional stereological counting method. Comparative Neurology,
392, 402412.
Van Essen, D. C. (2007). Cerebral cortical folding patterns in primates: Why they
vary and what they signify. In J. H. Klass & T. M. Pruess (Eds.). Evolution of the
nervous system (Vol. 4, pp. 267289). London: Elsevier.
White, M., & Gribbin, J. R. (1994). Einstein. A life in science. New York: Dutton.
Witelson, S. F., Kigar, D. L., & Harvey, T. (1999). The exceptional brain of Albert
Einstein. The Lancet, 353, 21492153.