Cited by 382

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

Maia, Tiago V., McClelland, James L.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0406666101

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01232-7 · DOI
  4. 10.1017/S0140525X00035032 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.253 · DOI
  6. Wilson T. D. (2002) Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious (Harvard Univ. Press Cambridge MA).
  7. 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.
  8. Cleeremans A. (1993) Mechanisms of Implicit Learning: Connectionist Models of Sequence Processing (MIT Press Cambridge MA). · DOI
  9. 10.1038/nn1102-1103 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/nn1102-1104 · DOI
  11. Rolls E. T. (1999) The Brain and Emotion (Oxford Univ. Press Oxford). · DOI
  12. Schoenbaum, G., Nugent, S. L., Saddoris, M. P. & Setlow, B. (2002) Neuro-Report 13, 885–890.
  13. 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/brain/awg180 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Fellows L. K. & Farah M. J. (June 24 2004) Cereb. Cortex 10.1093/cercor/bhh1108. · DOI
  16. 10.1093/brain/awf049 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-01-00428.1998 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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