Effect of somatic marker hypothesis on making decisions

Effect of bodied marker hypothesis on making decisionsThe Somatic-marker hypothesis (SMH) was first proposed by Demasio (1996), to explain the process of decision-making, magical spell incorporating the role of perception. This hypothesis create after working with neurological patients who had damage to the prefrontal region, specifically in the ventral and medial regions, and presented severe impairments in decision making abilities (Damasio, 1979, 1994). As patients did non show some(prenominal) other impairment to their mental abilities, other than a compromised ability to express sense, Damasio was capable to investigate a connexion in the midst of feeling and decision-making ability. However, this link has been opposed by the Expected Utility Theory, which considers a sagacious approach to decision-making, in which emotion does not play a role (Friedman Savage, 1948).Demasio states within the SMH that people ar able to make decisions through interaction in the mids t of emotion and rationality, to produce the nearly bewitch outcome. These interactions argon made by the emotional response and in figure of speechation from environmental input being presented in the form of physiologic arousal, allowing an soul to assess their emotional response to a military position (Gazzaniga, Ivry Mangun, 2009). He argued that emotion is most commonly presented through rewrites in an individuals physiological state, as these emotions ar represented within the humour as temporary changes in the activity pattern of somato-sensory structures. Although human emotion has been primarily linked to the functions of the limbic system, the SMH proposed that despite the involvement of emotion, the neuronal circuit involved in decision making incorporates a renewal of mastermind regions outside of these classic limbic system structures (MacLean, 1949). Damasio argues that in this process the emotional responses require five-fold sources of feedback from the pe riphery brain in order to assist decision making (Damasio, 2004).There befuddle been constitute to be two dissimilar forms of stimuli which suit of clothes an alteration in physiological states of humans allowing decision-making to later go across primary inducers be innate or learned stimuli which rely on the amygdala to produce a physiological change secondary inducers atomic number 18 entities which are produced through the recall of a personal contract of a primary inducer and rely on the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) to activate material states these are most common in the face of uncertain outcomes, as they rely on information provided by comparable past experiences. These incarnate states, which are experienced when a stimuli is presented, are the result of responses aimed at the brain which lead to the central nervous system (CNS) releasing neurotransmitters, a modification of the state of somatosensory maps, and an alteration in the transmission of signal s from the body to somatosensory regions. The body receives information from these changes, and combines them to be interpreted as an emotion (Bechara, 2004).After a somatic state has been produced by a primary inducer, signals are then accepted by the brain to produce somatic state patterns in the brainstem nuclei and in the somato-sensing cortices. Once this somatic state alteration has occurred due to the initial presentation of a primary inducer, the pattern is stored for later recall. afterwards presentation of this primary inducer or a related secondary inducer can cause the somatic state pattern to be recalled and produce a similar emotional response. As a result, the brain is able to produce a prediction model of alterations expected to occur in the body, allowing the individual to respond more effectively and rapidly to the stimuli, without having to wait for the changes in physiology to be produced by the periphery (Dunn, Dalgleish, Lawrence, 2006). This reaction is su mmarised by the SMH, as the process allows an individual to be influenced in decision-making by the basic biasing signals which are produced as a result of the neurotransmitters being released in the cerebral cortex and the diencephalon. For every response to a situation that an individual contemplates, a somatic state is created, which serve as an indicator of the expected outcome (Damasio, Tranel Damasio, 1991 Damasio, 1996). This causes the somatic state to apply a biasing effect of an individuals behaviours, feelings, and cognitive patterns in response to a situation.Evidence of the link between emotion and decision-making was provided by Domasio, when he observed a patient who had damage to the orbitofrontal cortex. He put that the patient E.V.R was able to generate reasonable solutions when presented with a social reasoning task, however, was unable to prioritize these solutions, identifying the most effective (Saver Damasio, 1991). Prior to this, the orbitofrontal cortex h ad primarily been associated with the control of emotion. This suggests that the decision-making process relies on information provided by the emotion region of the brain, in order to provide a reasonable response. Alternatively, some psychologists argue that the orbitofrontal cortex plays a leading role in applying social knowledge to the decision-making process rather than considering an individuals emotional response, due to the quotation of which rules can be applied to a particular social situation, rather than assessing somatic markers (Gazziniga et al., 2009).More distinguish was provided by the neuropsychologist Le Doux (1996) who set in motion that humans and animals responded to stimuli which could potentially harm them so quickly it was unlikely they could have considered the risks posed to them being in that situation. He argued that this quick emotional evaluation of stimuli is an innate response which has developed with evolution to preserve our species in the face of danger, rather than cognitively processing the unfolding events. Considering his evidence, LaDoux explains that our emotional circuitry is knowing to have a greater influence on our rational approaches to decisions, rather than our rational thoughts over-riding our emotions.Despite the SMH satis occurrenceorily explaining how our emotions have an unconscious effect on our decision making process, we must also consider the fact that emotions are also known to act consciously on our rational judgement. Some psychologists have suggested that this allows us to employ our emotions as another form of information which we integrate into our logical decision-making process (Schwarz, 2000). When presented with a disgorge of alternatives, it is suggested that we consider the emotions relating to the options before us, which we are often very aware of.Strong empirical evidence has been provided from selective information on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a decision-making task which is be lieved to rely on emotional-related feedback from the body to enable an take over response (Bechara, Tranel, Damasio Damasio, 1996). The data indicated the lesions in the VMPFC cause impairments in decision-making, particularly the ability to select the most appropriate and advantageous option. This behavioural impairment has therefore been associated with the absence of predictor signals which allow an individual to differentiate between good and bad decisions. IGT has been praised as a sensitive, ecological measure of decision-making impairment, however, assumptions required for it to can the SMH have been criticised as unsound. The first assumption was that this learning is likely due to predictor marker signals produced by the body. Evidence from psychophysiological profiles compiled during the IGT did not support this suggestion (Tomb, Hauser, Deldin Caramazza, 2002), resulting in the lack of a causal relationship being established between disrupted feedback from the perip hery and impaired decision-making. This suggests that the predictor changes may actually represent the expectancy anticipation towards the outcome, one time the decision has already been made (Amiez, Procyk, Honore, Sequeira Joseph, 2003). It is also suggested that the tasks which aimed to measure implicit learning as the reward/ penalisation schedule as being cognitively inexplicable, in fact demonstrated accurate knowledge of the tasks possible outcomes (Maia McClelland, 2004). It was found that cognitive mechanisms, including working-memory exert a strong influence on task performance.Further support was given for the SMH in the business environment, as it is able to explain why we often rely on gut feelings when making a decision, and find them to be better predictors for a decision outcome than food market data and past seek. Physiological evidence from these studies identifies the involvement of the striatum and anterior cingulated in recognizing patterns and calculating the probabilities of outcomes. It was found that these areas respond immediately when presented with repeated or alternative somatic state patterns (Huettel et al. 2002). Alternatively, Rolls (1999) provides criticism, as he argues that the SMH proposes a very in efficacious view that peripheral responses are located in the execution route, and for interpretation and measuring of this peripheral response to occur simultaneously. Rather, he suggests that reinforcement association, located in the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala, is more than efficient enough to allow emotion-based learning to occur. This learning would consequently alter behaviours via the orbitofrontal-striatal pathways, through implicit or plain processes.An alternative theory to decision-making is the Expected Utility Theory (EUT) (Bernoulli, 1738 cited 1997) which states that an individual is able to select an appropriate colonization in risky circumstances by comparing their expected utility values. These ar e calculated by adding the utility value of the outcomes multiplied by their respective probabilities, for severally option available (Mongin, 1997). The expected utilities are determined by considering the probability of each possible outcome (gain or loss) for a particular option (Hoogendoorn, Merk Treur, 2006). This theory of decision-making considers a rational approach, in which emotion does not cause a bias towards the decisions made.However, often criticism has been provided by Kahneman and Tversky (1974, 1979) when considering this theory as a practical model for human decision-making. They found in numerous studies that humans are particularly bad at estimating probabilities objectively, and so their emotions may cause a bias in the final decision-making process. This has been reinforced by many others (Ellsberg, 1961 Fellner, 1961) who highlight the difficulty in find the level of uncertainty in a given situation. They also suggest that people are not often aware of th e exact probabilities associated with the possible outcomes, and so this problem, combined with the issue of ambiguity has been the focus for a great deal further research Kahnenman Tversky, 2000).To conclude, the Somatic Marker Hypothesis proposed by Damasio (1994) suggests that when an individual experiences a situation, alterations in their physiological state are represented within their body as changes in their somato-sensory state. These changes are represented as an emotion towards that particular situation and act as an indicator of the expected outcome. When faced with a similar situation in the future, which requires a decision, Damasio suggested that an individual extracts emotional information supplied by somatic marker to palliate them in the decision-making process. Evidence for this theory has been provided by numerous studies of neurological patients who had damage to the prefrontal region, and presented severe impairments in decision making abilities (Damasio, 19 79, 1994). However, psychologists Gazziniga et, al. (2009) suggest that although emotion does play a role in decision-making, it is involved in the recognition of socially acceptable activities, rather than assessing somatic markers. In contrast, the Expected Utility Theory approaches decision-making in a much more rational way. It states that an individual assesses the probability of loss or gain for each available outcome in order to select the most advantageous choice of action. Bachara Demasio (2005) has since suggested further research to fully explore some unanswered questions posed by the SMH. Little research has previously been conducted into the different kinds of decision-making and the relationship it may have with recruiting different neural networks for different tasks. Secondly, he proposed investigating if we are able to successfully identify when emotions are helpful or a hindrance in decision-making and if there are any individual differences.