Cited by 894Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation

Dunn, Barnaby D., Dalgleish, Tim, Lawrence, Andrew D.·2006·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

The somatic marker hypothesis (SMH; [Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., 1991. Somatic markers and the guidance of behaviour: theory and preliminary testing. In Levin, H.S., Eisenberg, H.M., Benton, A.L. (Eds.), Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 217-229]) proposes that emotion-based biasing signals arising from the body are integrated in higher brain regions, in particular the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), to regulate decision-making in situations of complexity. Evidence for the SMH is largely based on performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; [Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R., 1996. Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 6 (2), 215-225]), linking anticipatory skin conductance responses (SCRs) to successful performance on a decision-making paradigm in healthy participants. These 'marker' signals were absent in patients with VMPFC lesions and were associated with poorer IGT performance. The current article reviews the IGT findings, arguing that their interpretation is undermined by the cognitive penetrability of the reward/punishment schedule, ambiguity surrounding interpretation of the psychophysiological data, and a shortage of causal evidence linking peripheral feedback to IGT performance. Further, there are other well-specified and parsimonious explanations that can equally well account for the IGT data. Next, lesion, neuroimaging, and psychopharmacology data evaluating the proposed neural substrate underpinning the SMH are reviewed. Finally, conceptual reservations about the novelty, parsimony and specification of the SMH are raised. It is concluded that while presenting an elegant theory of how emotion influences decision-making, the SMH requires additional empirical support to remain tenable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001

Cites

226 of 226 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Functions important for 'hot' decision-making are processing of reward and punishment and visceral responses to motivational cues.

    “Functions that are important for ‘hot’ decision-making are the processing of reward and punishment (which is also linked to inhibitory control) and the visceral responses to these motivational cues [42], [43].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Dunn, Barnaby D.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
239-271
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052762350
Cited by
894
References
226
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 74
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
somatic marker hypothesis, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, decision-making, emotional decision-making, Iowa Gambling Task, skin conductance response, anticipatory emotions, cognitive penetrability, reward and punishment, prefrontal cortex lesions
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Decision Making, Emotions, Gambling, Games, Experimental, Humans, Psychological Theory, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review