Talk:Somatic marker hypothesis

Expert opinion requested

This page has been edited (March 2006) by a graduate student who studies emotion and decision-making. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.203.142 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That would appear to be more expertise than most wikipedia articles have - why is the call for expert assistance still up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.209.153.161 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The expert assistance is up, because some people in wikipedia are interested in real experts' opinions on real subjects and this definitely is a real subject. I am not an expert on the subject, but the claims of Rolls seem very unsubstantiated to me, more like: "I don't buy it and circular, causal feedback processes are something I don't like anyway." So if someone from that school of thought could come up with hard evidence and experiments, that would be appreciated. From complex systems theory I can tell you that reinforcement alone simply doesn't do the trick. PS: I inserted a link to a scientific paper, written by the guys who are cited in the article already, it should be a good fit. Hirsch.im.wald 10:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls is my tutor (I'm an undergraduate Experimental Psychology student). If you want to read the other side of the argument, you could read his book: Emotion Explained (Oxford University Press, 2005). It's emphatically argued (I'm using a diplomatic choice of words here) and gives a very unfair account of alternative explanations and criticisms, but it is quite clear. His particular approach is based heavily on learning theory, which itself seems to be an evolution of behaviourist theory (i.e. one with links to neurophysiology). It all depends on what definition of 'emotion' you are working from, which in turn depends on how deeply you want to investigate decision-making. Much academic animosity seems to have grown from the confusion of one researcher's definition of emotion with another's and thus the apparent contradictions in the two working models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.20.162 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the comment that Rolls seems to dislike 'circular, causal feedback processes': I assure you that he does not. It is simply that he does not believe there is enough evidence for the existence or importance of such feedback in this particular case (which may or may not be a defensible standpoint; I am not defending him). I may update these comments when I have finished this essay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.20.162 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As the one who altered the page originally, I felt it worthwhile to add the alternative viewpoint from the likes of Ed Rolls. The somatic marker hypothesis is an interesting theory, but is considered vacuous by many in the field. The problem is that a large proportion of supporting evidence is sourced from experiments using the Iowa Gambling Task and associated skin conductance findings.

Firstly, the Iowa Gambling Task has been shown to have serious issues in relation to what it is actually measuring, it involves many functions of human cognition. A recent study from Fellows & Farah has clearly shown that altering the contingency of the task allows individuals with OMPFC lesions to perform the task successfully. The original task provides a bias at the outset towards high reward decks that these individuals tend to prefer for the remainder of the task (which are ultimately bad choices). Changing this initial bias allows lesion patients to perform as well as controls. This may suggest the issue is a deficit in reversal learning rather than in using somatic-markers (i.e. the patients cannot unlearn a previously rewarded response rather than myopia for the future).

Secondly, the physiological responses found by skin conductance experiments alongside the Gambling task, suggest an anticipatory physiological response before selecting poor choices, asort of warning signal, however, there are other interpretations of this data (e.g. response to feedback, indicator of risk, post-decision emotional state).

A good review of the current status of somatic-marker studies and the hypothesis itself is provided by Dunn, Dagleish, & Lawrence (2006). The theory requires more evidence, at this moment the data is fairly tenuous and therefore I gave an alternative viewpoint.

Barney Dunn's paper is available here (don't want to link it in the main entry page as I don't know how this sits with copyright issues, remove if necessary) - http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/somatic.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.172.72 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who better?

Tryptofish, I think you'd be perfect for this job. E Eng 19:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but which job? I cannot find any other recent talk on this talk page. Is there an immediate issue? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, I get the impression that the issue is that there may be problems with WP:SYNTH, with topics covered based on sources that do not actually mention somatic markers. Is that it? If so, I can certainly look at that. I imagine it would be a matter of either deleting some content, or adding some sources and/or clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic certainly has lots of refs which do speak of somatic markers. But some parts, such as section "Evolutionary evidence", may be SYNH. Also while Damasio and followers did exploit the Iowa gambling task, the section Somatic marker hypothesis#Iowa gambling task appears to be too verbose and stray way off somatic markers. (In fact, it is ridiculously larger than the article Iowa gambling task itself) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to put this in the section below re "Clearer Language" (or something). The article's too dense, smells of OR/SYNTH, etc. It's nothing I could tackle with anything like confidence. E Eng 23:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it was written by well-meaning persons with certain expertise in the field. Unfortunately these were IPs and we cannot ping the authors with questions for clarification. Ia appears that vast majority of text is referenced from primary sources. I do not exclude the possibility that some statements are based from the overview sections thereof (which would turn them into secondary sources). Therefore handling the article will require LOTS of reading. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. When I get around to it, I'll try to make some fixes. I'll most likely concentrate just on sections that are pointed out to me here in talk, as Staszek Lem just did. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the section "Application to risky sexual behavior", written in a smooth essay style, has one intro ref, one ref describing a study and two more subsequent refs about which it is unclear whether they comment on the study described or just juxtaposed (which would be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't see clear description how Iowa Gambling Task is connected to SMH. The text says IGT was to "adequately assess the obvious deficits in emotional processing, decision-making, and social skills of OMPFC lesioned individuals". Also "is frequently used in experiments exploring the somatic marker hypothesis." -- How? . For example there is statement: " it is helpful in testing the somatic marker hypothesis since it studies how anticipatory signals affect decision-making." -- how is that? Next, "with the somatic marker hypothesis that posits that people with "dysfunctional decision-making circuitry as reflected by poor Iowa gambling task performance and emotional distress has little influence on their decision-making capacity" -- how it that related to the hypothesis that experience creates some cumulative imprints in brain? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what the heck is physiological affective state - how the term can be deduced by clicking links of [[physiology|physiological]] [[affect (psychology)|affective]] state ? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so on. May be I am stupid, but I can pick on every second statement in the article. At the first glance the whole text looks impressive,.... for a person who wants to be impressed. But IMO hardly instrumental in understanding the place of this hypothesis in the field. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic(-)marker(s) hypothesis?

If I can do so without stirring up this hornets' nest again, may I ask that someone clarify why the title of the article ("Somatic markers hypothesis") doesn't match the name used in the body of the article itself ("Somatic-marker hypothesis")? Should one be brought into line with the other? EEng (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've never heard it called the somatic markers hypothesis in the field. I would just have a redirect for the pluralised misnomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.232.63 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if some kind person could carry out that modification, for which I lack the mental acuity. Thanks! EEng (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to move the article and to remove the dash from "somatic-marker" occurences inside the article. --Kraymer (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for clearer language

EEng--I don't claim to have the expertise to know the underlying subject matter. But the language used was nearly incomprehensible to me, despite having a degree in cognitive sciences, and despite having read some of the sources that are cited. I came to this website to understand the sources a little more, and did not appreciate a general encyclopedia article being written in the same style as the scientific papers. I think the article needs more work, and I would prefer someone with more expertise revising it if you think my changes are substantive. I was trying to make minor changes without affecting the sense because I do not trust my understanding of the underlying research. Feel free to qualify the active prose to weaken it. But I point out that simply leaving it in the passive voice and strewn with unnecessary jargon will not help anyone assess the strength of this hypothesis or determine that it is unproven; it is unclear if the hypothesis is unproven or who is proposing it if we keep it in the passive voice with constructions such as "Somatic markers are proposed . . ." LostPal (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this until today. I'm gonna have to limit my involvement to joining in encouraging someone brave taking on the task of making something comprehensible out of this over-jargoned mess. EEng (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the graduate student who edited the page originally an aeon ago, I'd love to spend some time getting the article in a more readily consumable format - but you know, the IGT is so last decade and I've definitely moved on. The article could also be updated with Barney Dunn's 2010 Psych Sci article (didn't notice it on a quick scan). That study perhaps provides the best current evidence for an SMH-like process (and no IGT in sight). There are some 20th anniversary review papers already appearing in Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience (mainly IGT focused), think Bechara's is already available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.127.206 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words in criticism

> Some researchers believe that the use of somatic markers (i.e., afferent feedback) would be a very inefficient method of influencing behavior.

Who? Citation?

50.113.15.173 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]