The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task
Abstract
Bechara, Damasio, and coworkers [Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. & Damasio, A. R. (1997) Science 275, 1293–1295] have reported that normal participants decide advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy in a simple card game designed to mimic real-life decision-making. Bechara et al . have used this result to support their view that nonconscious somatic markers can guide advantageous behavior. By using more sensitive methods, we show that participants have much more knowledge about the game than previously thought. In fact, participants report knowledge of the advantageous strategy more reliably than they behave advantageously. Furthermore, when they behave advantageously, their verbal reports nearly always reveal evidence of quantitative knowledge about the outcomes of the decks that would be sufficient to guide such advantageous behavior. In addition, there is evidence that participants also have access to more qualitative reportable knowledge. These results are compatible with the view that, in this task, both overt behavior and verbal reports reflect sampling from consciously accessible knowledge; there is no need to appeal to nonconscious somatic markers. We also discuss the findings of other studies that similarly suggest alternative interpretations of other evidence previously used to support a role for somatic markers in decision-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“it is the same system that governs intertemporal decision making in the IGT (Maia and McClelland, 2004).”
From Dual conception of risk in the Iowa Gambling Task: effects of sleep deprivation and test-retest gap (2013) · cites this paper as Maia and McClelland, 2004
In the citing paper
“Decision making on the basis of the intertemporal attribute in the IGT reflects explicit learning (Maia and McClelland, 2004)”
From Dual conception of risk in the Iowa Gambling Task: effects of sleep deprivation and test-retest gap (2013) · cites this paper as Maia and McClelland, 2004
In the citing paper
“Maia and McClelland (2004) challenged Bechara et al.’s (1994) view that conscious awareness and performance on the IGT are unrelated by showing that explicit knowledge about decks improved deck selection.”
From Performance Under Stress: An Eye-Tracking Investigation of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) (2018) · cites this paper as Maia and McClelland, 2004
In the citing paper
“Maia and McClelland’s (2004) Test of Awareness measures the emergence of conceptual knowledge about deck contingencies.”
From Performance Under Stress: An Eye-Tracking Investigation of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) (2018) · cites this paper as Maia and McClelland, 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · Cited by 6,128
Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis.
Luce, R. D. (2005) · doi:10.1037/14396-000 · Cited by 1,157
Rolls, E. T., Hornak, J., Wade, D., & McGrath, J. (1994) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.57.12.1518 · Cited by 1,005
Orbitofrontal cortex neurons: role in olfactory and visual association learning
Rolls, E. T., Critchley, H. D., Mason, R., & Wakeman, E. A. (1996) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1996.75.5.1970 · Cited by 398
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01232-7 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0140525X00035032 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.253 · DOI
- Wilson T. D. (2002) Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious (Harvard Univ. Press Cambridge MA).
- Cleeremans, A. (2001) in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, eds. Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (Elsevier, London), Vol. 4, pp. 2584–2589.
- Cleeremans A. (1993) Mechanisms of Implicit Learning: Connectionist Models of Sequence Processing (MIT Press Cambridge MA). · DOI
- 10.1038/nn1102-1103 · DOI
- 10.1038/nn1102-1104 · DOI
- Rolls E. T. (1999) The Brain and Emotion (Oxford Univ. Press Oxford). · DOI
- Schoenbaum, G., Nugent, S. L., Saddoris, M. P. & Setlow, B. (2002) Neuro-Report 13, 885–890.
- 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · DOI
- 10.1093/brain/awg180 · DOI · Paper page
- Fellows L. K. & Farah M. J. (June 24 2004) Cereb. Cortex 10.1093/cercor/bhh1108. · DOI
- 10.1093/brain/awf049 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-01-00428.1998 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The human orbitofrontal cortex: linking reward to hedonic experience
Kringelbach, M. L. (2005) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1747 · Cited by 2,180
The Social Brain: Neural Basis of Social Knowledge
Adolphs, R. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514 · Cited by 1,827
The neural basis of human moral cognition
Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1768 · Cited by 930
The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001 · Cited by 894
The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.002 · Cited by 798
Metadata
- Authors
- Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology and Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2004-10-22
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 16075-16080
- ISSN
- 0027-8424
- 1091-6490
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0406666101
- The paper
- Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406666101
