volume and IQ scores.8 Further work is needed to
reconcile these results with the inconsistent findings on
brain weight in the earlier case reports. Brain volume
and weight are not perfectly correlated, and imaging
does not provide measures of brain weight.
The case of Albert Einstein
Resolving the neurobiological substrate of intelligence
may be facilitated by the comparison of extreme cases
with control groups within the framework of specific
hypotheses. Albert Einstein is one of the intellectual
giants of recorded history, and the preservation of his
brain provides the possibility of an important case study.
Since Einstein’s death, there has been no report of the
gross anatomy of his brain. Here we present the first
such study.
Our investigation of Einstein’s brain was guided
theoretically on the basis of current information of
cortical localisation of cognitive functions. The
generation and manipulation of three-dimensional
spatial images and the mathematical representation of
concepts would appear to be essential cognitive
processes in the development of Einstein’s theory of
r e l a t i v i t y .9 Einstein’s own description of his scientific
thinking was that “. . . words do not seem to play any
role”, but there is “associative play” of “more or less
clear images” of a “visual and muscular type”.1 0
Visuospatial cognition,1 1 , 1 2 mathematical ideation,1 1 a n d
imagery of movement1 3 are mediated predominantly by
right and left posterior parietal regions. We hypothesised
that the parietal lobes in particular might show
anatomical differences between Einstein’s brain and the
brains of controls.
Preservation of Einstein’s brain
Einstein died from a ruptured aneurysm of the
abdominal aorta in 1955 at the age of 76 years. His
medical history has been well documented, and his
biographies show that he was mentally adept to the end
of his life.9 Within 7 hours of death, his brain was
removed at necropsy, fresh weight was measured,
perfusion of 10% formalin by injection into the internal
carotid arteries was carried out, and the whole brain was
then freely suspended in 10% formalin for fixation and
subsequent study. No significant neuropathology was
seen on examination (gross or microscopic). After
fixation, caliper measurements were made directly from
the brain; calibrated photographs were taken of all views
of the whole brain and of the dissected hemispheres; the
cerebral hemispheres were cut into approximately 240
blocks, each about 10 cm3; and the location of the
blocks was recorded on photographs. The blocks were
embedded in celloidin, and histological sections were
m a d e .
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • June 19, 1999 2149
In recent decades, there have been major advances in
neuroscience at the behavioural and neural levels, but
the long-standing issue of the neurobiological basis of
variation in intelligence remains unresolved.1 Around the
turn of the 20th century, much attention was focused on
anatomical correlates of intelligence through detailed
necropsy case studies of the brains of outstanding
people, such as mathematician Karl F Gauss or
physician William Osler.2 , 3 By 1907, Spitzka4 h a d
published an extensive monograph that summarised 137
case reports of notable men and women such as Bach
and Descartes, and also presented one of the first group
studies of nine scholars. Weight of the brain and patterns
of gyral convolutions were usually examined.
This early work had several limitations. First, medical
and cognitive status at the time of death were often not
known. Second, normal comparison groups were not
available, so that the results were mainly idiosyncratic
observations. Quantitative measurement was usually
limited to the weight of the whole brain, and even its
relation to intelligence remained unresolved. For
example, novelist Ivan Turgenev’s brain weighed
2012 g,4 whereas the brain of author Anatole France was
half the value (1017 g).5 Third, work was based on the
assumption that intelligence was a unitary homogeneous
ability—even though different people varied greatly in
their area of cognitive excellence. (According to current
theories of intelligence, there are independent spheres or
modules of cognitive ability.6) Last, the studies had no
a priori hypotheses as to the relation between structure
and psychological function, since there was little
knowledge about the cortical localisation of cognitive
f u n c t i o n .7
After the horrific events of World War II, issues
related to the neurobiological substrate of intelligence
were considered with great caution, and research in this
area dwindled. The development of computerised
imaging technologies has made it possible to obtain
quantitative measurements of brain anatomy in vivo with
magnetic resonance scanning, and renewed attention has
been directed to the investigation of structure-function
relations in the general population. The studies have
varied greatly in their methodology, and, although the
results are inconsistent, they do point to a low, but
statistically significant, positive correlation between brain
Lancet 1999; 353: 2149–53
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (S F Witelson PhD,
D L Kigar, T Harvey MD)
Correspondence to: Dr Sandra F Witelson, Department of Psychiatry
and Behavioural Neurosciences, Faculty of Health Sciences,
McMaster University, HSC 3G53, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton,
Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada
(e-mail: witelson@mcmaster.ca)
The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein
Sandra F Witelson, Debra L Kigar, Thomas Harvey
Department of medical history
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HISTORY
2150 THE LANCET • Vol 353 • June 19, 1999
Although there is no record of his having made specific
arrangements for post-mortem study of his brain,
Einstein was sympathetic to the idea of his brain being
studied. As reported in The New York Times in 1951, he,
along with other physicists, underwent electroencephalographic
recordings for research purposes.1 4 He also
“insisted that his brain should be used for research”.1 5 A t
the time of his death, the family requested a necropsy,
which was done by pathologist Thomas Harvey, who
took the initiative to remove the brain for scientific
study. Consent was given by Einstein’s elder son, Hans
Albert Einstein,1 6 and by the executor of Einstein’s
estate, Prof Otto Nathan (ref 17, p 264).
Control brain specimens
The control group consisted of all the male specimens
available at the time (n=35) in the Witelson Normal
Brain Collection based at McMaster University. The key
features of this collection are that the brains are from
research volunteers with normal neurological and
psychiatric status (as judged by
clinical history and medical
assessments) and normal
cognitive ability (as
documented by research
neuropsychological testing that
included IQ assessment).1 8 I n
each case, informed consent
with respect to testing and
necropsy had been obtained.
Mean Full Scale IQ score
o n the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale1 9 w a s
1 1 6 (SD 9). Quantitative
measures of Einstein’s brain
and this control group were
compared; Einstein’s brain was
also compared with a smaller
age-matched subgroup (in the
collection) of the 8 men aged
65 years or more (mean 68) for
brain measures known to
change with advancing age.
Although women have smaller
brains than men,2 0 for purposes
of descriptive analysis of gyral
morphology, Einstein’s brain
was also compared with 56
female brains (the total
number of female brains in the
same collection).
M e a s u r e m e n t s
Direct caliper measurements
were made both from
Einstein’s brain and from the
control brains. Other
measurements were made from
calibrated photographs. We
measured baseline values for
overall dimensions of the
brain, including variables for
which there are published data
(eg, weight, corpus callosum
s i z e2 1); measures involving
parietal regions important for
visuospatial cognition and mathematical thinking; and,
for comparison, measures of frontal and temporal
regions. Statistically significant differences between
Einstein and the control group were defined as those
measures at least 2 SDs from the control mean.
Einstein’s parietal lobes
Figure 1 shows the set of photographs taken in 1955 of
the lateral, superior, inferior, and midsagittal views of
Einstein’s brain. The superior view (figure 1A) shows a
relatively spherical brain which is corroborated
quantitatively (see below). Moderate atrophy is present
around the main fissures in the central regions in both
hemispheres, to an extent common for a person in their
eighth decade.2 2 A unique morphological feature is
visible in the lateral surface of each hemisphere which
otherwise shows usual anatomy (figure 1B, 1C)—
namely, the posterior ascending branch of the Sylvian
fissure is confluent with the postcentral sulcus.
Consequently, there is no parietal operculum (the
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HISTORY
Figure 1: Photographs taken in 1995 of five views of Einstein’s whole brain (meninges removed)
A, superior; B, left lateral; C, right lateral; D, inferior; E, midsagittal view of the left hemisphere. The arrow in
each hemisphere indicates the posterior ascending branch of the Sylvian fissure as it runs into (is confluent
with) the postcentral sulcus (compare with figure 2). Consequently, there is no parietal operculum in either
hemisphere. Scale bar, 1 cm.
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • June 19, 1999 2151
anterior part of the supramarginal
gyrus), which normally develops
between these two sulci during fetal
l i f e .2 3 , 2 4 This morphology found in each
of Einstein’s hemispheres was not seen
in any hemisphere of the 35 control
male brains or of the 56 female brains,
nor in any specimen documented in the
published collections of post-mortem
b r a i n s .2 5 , 2 6
Figure 2 highlights this unique
feature of Einstein’s brain in
comparison with a typical control
brain. Three main types of morphology
of the Sylvian fissure and surrounding
gyri have been described previously;2 7
in each type, the Sylvian fissure
terminates or bifurcates behind the
postcentral sulcus, and the parietal
operculum is present. The tracing of
the superimposed hemispheres of the
control brain (figure 2, no 3) shows the
typical right-left asymmetry in size and
position of the Sylvian fissure and the
parietal opercula.2 8 By contrast, the
tracing of Einstein’s hemispheres
(figure 2, no 6) shows the confluence
of the posterior ascending branch of
the Sylvian fissure and the postcentral
sulcus in each hemisphere, the absence
of the parietal opercula, and unusual
symmetry between hemispheres of
sulcal morphology in this region.
Quantitative measurements of
Einstein’s brain compared with the
male control group are shown in the
table, with relevant landmarks shown
in figure 3. Einstein’s brain was not
statistically different from the control
group on most measures. His brain
weight did not differ from the control
group, from the age-matched
subgroup, or from published large agematched
groups (table, measure 1).
Unfortunately, the volume of Einstein’s
brain had not been obtained. Brain length, height, size of
the corpus callosum, and measures of the frontal and
temporal lobes did not differ between Einstein and
controls. However, size of a specific gyral region in the
frontal operculum was different in Einstein’s brain from
that of the control group. The possible association of this
feature in relation to biographical accounts of Einstein’s
atypical speech development1 7 will be reported elsewhere.
By contrast, in the parietal lobes, there were striking
quantitative differences. Each hemisphere of Einstein’s
brain was 1 cm wider (15%) than that of the control
group (measure 5). Maximum width usually occurs
across the end of the Sylvian fissure—the region of
unique morphology in Einstein’s brain. The ratios of
hemisphere width to height and of brain width to length
(measures 6 and 7) showed that in Einstein’s brain the
parietal lobes were relatively wider and the brain more
spherical (see figure 1A) than those in the control group.
In Einstein’s brain, the parietal operculum was missing
in each hemisphere in contrast to control values of
6 · 1 c m2 and 3·6 cm2 in the left and right hemispheres,
respectively (measure 24). Parietal regions typically
s h o w anatomical asymmetry (table, control group,
measures 19–242 8). Einstein’s parietal lobes were
symmetrical (compare with figure 2, no 6). This was due
mainly to his left parietal lobe being larger than
u s u a l , resembling a right hemisphere in size and
m o r p h o l o g y .
D i s c u s s i o n
The gross anatomy of Einstein’s brain was within normal
limits with the exception of his parietal lobes. In each
hemisphere, morphology of the Sylvian fissure was
unique compared with 182 hemispheres from the 35
control male and 56 female brains: the posterior end of
the Sylvian fissure had a relatively anterior position,
associated with no parietal operculum. In this same
region, Einstein’s brain was 15% wider than controls.
These two features suggest that, in Einstein’s brain,
extensive development of the posterior parietal lobes
occurred early,2 4 in both longitudinal and breadth
dimensions, thereby constraining the posterior expansion
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HISTORY
Figure 2: Lateral photographs and tracings of left (solid line) and right (dashed line)
superimposed hemispheres of a typical control male brain (1, 2, 3) and the brain of
Einstein (4, 5, 6)
The photographs of the control brain show the parietal operculum in the left (stippled) and right
(hatched) hemisphere, situated between the postcentral (PC) sulcus and the posterior ascending
branch of the Sylvian fissure (SF), which originates at the point of bifurcation (l) and terminates at
S. PC1 is the inferior end of PC at SF. The tracing of the superimposed hemispheres (3) shows the
asymmetry in position and size between the parietal opercula. The tracing of Einstein’s
hemispheres (6) highlights the confluence of PC and the posterior ascending branch of SF in each
hemisphere, the absence of the parietal opercula, and the symmetry of the sulcal morphology
between hemispheres. Comparison of the tracings shows the relatively anterior position of the SF
bifurcation in Einstein, and the associated greater posterior parietal expanse, particularly in his left
hemisphere compared with the control brain.
2152 THE LANCET • Vol 353 • June 19, 1999
of the Sylvian fissure and the development of the parietal
operculum, but resulting in a larger expanse of the
inferior parietal lobule. A further consequence of this
morphology is that the full supramarginal gyrus lies
behind the Sylvian fissure, undivided by a major sulcus
as is usually the case. Van Essen2 9 hypothesised that a
gyrus develops within a region of functionally related
cortex to allow for efficient axonal connectivity between
opposite cortical walls of the gyrus; by contrast, sulci
separate cortical regions having less functional
relatedness. In this context, the compactness of
Einstein’s supramarginal gyrus within the inferior
parietal lobule may reflect an extraordinarily large
expanse of highly integrated cortex within a functional
network. And in fact there is evidence that cortical
representation of different functions is often separated by
s u l c i .3 0 This notion could be consistent with Cajal’s3 1
speculation that variation in axonal connectivity may be
a neuronal correlate of intelligence. A larger expanse of a
functional cortical network may reflect more modules3 2
which could provide a functional advantage.
The inferior parietal lobule is well developed in the
human brain; it is a secondary association area that
provides for cross-modal associations among visual,
somesthetic, and auditory stimuli.7 V i s u o s p a t i a l
cognition, mathematical thought,1 1 and imagery of
m o v e m e n t1 3 are strongly dependent on this region.
Einstein’s exceptional intellect in these cognitive
domains and his self-described mode of scientific
t h i n k i n g1 0 may be related to the atypical anatomy in his
inferior parietal lobules. Increased expansion of the
inferior parietal region was also noted in other physicists
and mathematicians. For example, for both the
mathematician, Gauss, and the physicist, Siljeström,
extensive development of the inferior parietal regions,
including the supramarginal gyri, was noted (ref 4, pp
180, 200).
Einstein’s brain weight was not different from that of
controls, clearly indicating that a large (heavy) brain is
not a necessary condition for exceptional intellect.
Microscopic differences may underlie gross anatomical
differences. The limited data on Einstein’s brain do not
point to a difference in the number of neurons
throughout the depth of the cortex in the frontal or
temporal lobes,3 3 , 3 4 but possibly a difference in the ratio
of the number of glial cells relative to neurons in the left
parietal cortex3 5 (compare ref 36).
This report clearly does not resolve the long-standing
issue of the neuroanatomical substrate of intelligence.
However, the findings do suggest that variation in
specific cognitive functions may be associated with the
structure of the brain regions mediating those functions.
The results have heuristic value for developing
hypotheses of the gross and microscopic anatomical
substrate of different aspects of intelligence that can be
tested in future neuroimaging and post-mortem studies.
In particular, the results predict that anatomical features
of parietal cortex may be related to visuospatial
intelligence. We also hope that this case study may be an
impetus for donation of brain specimens from other
gifted and normal individuals to support investigation of
structure-function relations in health and disease.
This work was supported in part by US NIH contract NS62344, grant
NS18954, and grant MA-10610 from MRC (Canada) to SFW.
Materials were provided by the Albert Einstein Archives, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. The contribution of the late Henry C Witelson is
a p p r e c i a t e d .
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HISTORY
Figure 3: Sketch of a typical brain showing the landmarks for
defining the measurements shown in table
F, O, and T: frontal, occipital and temporal poles, respectively; PreC, C,
PC: superior ends of the precentral, central and postcentral sulci,
respectively; PreC1, C1, PC1: inferior ends of these sulci, respectively; A,
point of origin of the anterior ascending branch of the Sylvian fissure (SF);
B, point of bifurcation of the posterior SF; S, end of SF; S1, and C2, points
of the shortest distance from S and C1, respectively, to the bottom of the
temporal lobe; parietal operculum (stippled region), the anterior segment
of the supramarginal gyrus which surrounds BS.
Einstein Control group (mean, SD)
Left Right Left Right
Age (yr) 76 57 (11)
Height (cm) 176 178 (8)
Overall brain measures
1 Brain weight, fresh (g) 1230 1400 (118)*
2 Hemisphere weight, fixed (g) 550·0 545·0 591·0 (46·0) 591·0 (48·0)
3 Maximum height of hemisphere 8·9 8·7 9·3 (0·6) 9·4 (0·6)
(cm)†
4 Length of hemisphere (OF) (cm) 17·2 16·4 16·9 (0·6) 16·8 (0·6)
5 Maximum width of hemisphere 7·5§ 7·5§ 6·5 (0·5) 6·5 (0·5)
(cm)‡
6 Ratio of width of hemisphere to 0·84§ 0·86§ 0·70 (0·07) 0·69 (0·07)
height
7 Ratio of width of brain to length 0·89§ 0·77 (0·06)
(mean OF)
8 Corpus callosum area (cm2) 6·8 7·0 (0·90)¶
Frontal lobe (cm)
9 F-PreC 9·2 9·5 9·4 (0·7) 9·2 (0·8)
10 FC 11·3 11·6 10·6 (0·6) 10·5 (0·6)
11 FA 5·1 5·1 4·8 (0·4) 4·7 (0·4)
12 A-PreC1 0·8 0·9 0·9 (0·4) 1·0 (0·4)
13 PreC1-C1 1·2 1·2 1·4 (0·5) 1·2 (0·4)
Temporal lobe (cm)
14 TO 13·2 12·8 13·2 (0·5) 13·2 (0·5)
15 C1-C2 3·9 3·9 4·0 (0·3) 4·0 (0·3)
16 SS1 6·1 6·6 5·1 (1·1) 6·0 (0·9)**
Parietal/occipital lobe (cm)
17 O-PC 8·4 7·9 8·3 (0·8) 8·4 (0·8)
18 OC 8·9 8·3 9·5 (0·6) 9·3 (0·8)
19 OB 7·1 7·9 5·8 (0·9) 7·2 (0·9)**
20 OS 8·0 7·9 6·1 (1·1) 7·4 (1·0)**
21 BS 2·5 2·9 0·9 (1·1) 2·4 (1·3)**
22 C1-PC1 3·5§ 2·0 2·3 (0·6) 2·0 (0·6)**
23 PC1-B 0§ 0§ 1·9 (1·0) 1·1 (1·2)**
24 Parietal operculum (cm2) 0§ 0§ 6·1 (3·4) 3·6 (2·1)**
Control group consists of 35 men and an age-matched male subgroup (see text).
*Our control mean of 1400 g is similar to values of other studies of large groups of
white men of similar age range (30–70 years)—eg, mean fresh brain weight=1399 g,
n=1433, mean age=53 years.20 For the age-matched subgroup, mean (SD) fresh brain
weight was 1386 g (149). In a large study, mean fresh brain weight for a 70–80 year age
group was 1342 g, n=253.20
†Maximum height usually occurs near the plane of point C (figure 3).
‡Maximum width of each hemisphere occurs over the end of SF (figure 3).
§Statistically different (2 SDs from the control group) or reflect unique morphology.
¶Callosal area is larger in non-right-handers and decreases with advancing age.21 There
is evidence to suggest that Einstein was not consistently right-handed.37 Einstein’s
callosal area of 6·8 cm2 tended to be larger than his predicted value (5·9 cm2) when
hand preference and age were taken into account.21
**Statistically significant right-left anatomical asymmetry within the control group
(compare ref 28) (p<0·01, two-tailed paired t-tests).
Measurements (see figure 3) of Einstein’s brain compared with
a control group
THE LANCET • Vol 353 • June 19, 1999 2153
R e f e r e n c e s
1 Deary IJ, Caryl PG. Neuroscience and human intelligence
differences. Trends Neurosci 1997; 2 0 : 3 6 5 – 7 1 .
2 Wagner R. Vorstudien zu einer wissenschaftlichen: Morphologie und
Physiologie des menschlichen Gehirns als Seelenorgan. Göttingen:
Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, I 1860; II 1862.
3 Donaldson HH, Canavan MM. A study of the brains of three
scholars. J Comp Neurol 1928; 4 6 : 1 – 9 5 .
4 Spitzka EA. A study of the brains of six eminent scientists and
scholars belonging to the American Anthropometric Society.
Together with a description of the skull of Professor E D Cope. T r a n s
Am Philos Soc 1907; 2 1 : 1 7 5 – 3 0 8 .
5 Gould SJ. The mismeasure of man. New York: W W Norton, 1981.
6 Gardner H. Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences.
New York: Basic Books, 1983.
7 Geschwind N. Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. B r a i n
1965; 8 8 : 2 3 7 – 9 7 .
8 Wickett JC, Vernon PA, Lee DH. In vivo brain size, head perimeter,
and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Person Individ
D i f f 1994; 1 6 : 8 3 1 – 3 8 .
9 Pais A. Einstein lived here. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
10. Einstein A. Cited in Hadamard J. The psychology of invention in the
mathematical field. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1 9 4 9 :1 4 2 – 4 3 .
1 1 Critchley M. The parietal lobes. New York: Hafner Publications,
1 9 7 1 .
1 2 Tagaris GA, Kim S, Strupp JP, Andersen P, Ugurbil K,
Georgopoulos AP. Quantitative relations between parietal activation
and performance in mental rotation. Neurol Report 1996; 7 : 7 7 3 – 7 6 .
1 3 Crammond DJ. Motor imagery: never in your wildest dreams. T r e n d s
N e u r o s c i 1997; 2 0 : 5 4 – 5 7 .
1 4 Einstein’s brainwaves being recorded: geniuses aid test of brain
processes. The New York Times. February 24, 1951.
1 5 Clark RW. Einstein: the life and times. New York: Thomas Crowell,
1971: 630.
1 6 Brian D. Einstein: a life. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1996: 437.
1 7 Highfield R, Carter P. The private lives of Albert Einstein. New York:
St Martin’s Press, 1993.
1 8 Witelson SF, McCulloch PB. Premortem and postmortem
measurement to study structure with function: a human brain
collection. Schizophr Bull 1991; 1 7 : 5 8 3 – 9 1 .
1 9 Weschler D. Manual: Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York:
Psychological Corporation, 1955.
2 0 Dekaban AS, Sadowsky D. Changes in brain weights during the span
of human life: relation of brain weights to body heights and body
weights. Ann Neurol 1978; 4 : 3 4 5 – 5 6 .
2 1 Witelson SF. Hand and sex differences in the isthmus and genu of the
human corpus callosum: a postmortem morphological study. B r a i n
1989; 1 1 2 : 7 9 9 – 8 3 5 .
2 2 Tomlinson BE. Ageing and the dementias. In: Adams JH, Duchen
LW, eds. Greenfield’s neuropathology, 5th edn. London: Edward
Arnold, 1992.
2 3 Chi JG, Dooling EC, Gilles FH. Gyral development of the human
brain. Ann Neurol 1977; 1 : 8 6 – 9 3 .
2 4 Fontes V. Morfologia do cortex cerebral (Desenvolvimento). Lisbon:
Lisboa, 1944.
2 5 Connolly CJ. External morphology of the primate brain. Springfield,
IL: CC Thomas, 1950.
2 6 Ono M, Kubik S, Abernathey CD. Atlas of the cerebral sulci. New
York: George Thieme Verlag, 1990.
2 7 Witelson SF, Kigar DL. Sylvian fissure morphology and asymmetry
in men and women: bilateral differences in relation to handedness in
men. J Comp Neurol 1992; 3 2 3 : 3 2 6 – 4 0 .
2 8 Witelson SF, Kigar DL. Asymmetry in brain function follows
asymmetry in anatomical form: gross, microscopic, postmortem and
imaging studies. In: Boller F, Grafman J, eds. Handbook of
neuropsychology. Vol 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1988.
2 9 Van Essen DC. A tension-based theory of morphogenesis and
compact wiring in the central nervous system. N a t u r e 1997; 3 8 5 :
3 1 3 – 1 8 .
3 0 Welker WI, Campos GB. Physiological significance of sulci in
somatic sensory cerebral cortex in mammals of the family P r o c y o n i d a e .
J Comp Neurol 1963; 120: 1 9 – 3 6 .
3 1 Cajal S. Recollections of my life. London: MIT Press, 1989.
3 2 Stevens CF. How cortical interconnectedness varies with network
size. Neural Computation 1989; 1: 4 7 3 – 7 9 .
3 3 Anderson B, Harvey T. Alterations in cortical thickness and neuronal
density in the frontal cortex of Albert Einstein. Neurosci Lett 1 9 9 6 ;
2 1 0 : 1 6 1 – 6 4 .
3 4 Kigar DL, Witelson SF, Glezer II, Harvey T. Estimates of cell
number in temporal neocortex in the brain of Albert Einstein. S o c
Neurosci Abst 1997; 2 3 : no 89.9.
3 5 Diamond MC, Scheibel AB, Murphy JGM, Harvey T. On the brain
of a scientist: Albert Einstein. Exp Neurol 1985; 8 8 : 1 9 8 – 2 0 4 .
3 6 Hines T. Further on Einstein’s brain. Exp Neurol 1998; 150: 3 4 3 – 4 4 .
3 7 Winokur M. Einstein: a portrait. Corte Madera, CA: Pomegranate
Artbooks, 1984.
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HISTORY
