Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy

Science

Volumn 275, Issue 5304, 1997, Pages 1293-1295

  Bechara, Antoine ^a   Damasio, Hanna ^a,b   Tranel, Daniel ^a   Damasio, Antonio R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN INJURY; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN CONDUCTANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

AGED; BRAIN DAMAGE, CHRONIC; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSE; GAMBLING; HUMANS; INTUITION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; UNCONSCIOUS (PSYCHOLOGY);

SUGARCANE RAMU STUNT DISEASE PHYTOPLASMA;

EID: 0031049598     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. A. Bechara, A. R. Damasio, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, Cognition 50, 7 (1994).
2. A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, Cereb. Cortex 6, 215 (1996).
3. The patients who participated in the experiment were drawn from the Division of Cognitive Neuroscience's Patient Registry and have been described previously (1, 2). Three are female (ages 53, 63, and 64), and three are male (ages 51, 52, and 65). All have stable focal lesions. Years of education: 13 ± 2 (mean ± SEM); verbal IQ: 111 ± 8 (mean ± SEM); performance IQ; 102 ± 8 (mean ± SEM).
4. The results in this group of normal participants are similar to the results described previously in other normal participants (2).
5. A. R. Damasio, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (Grosset/Putnam, New York, 1994).
6. We envision these biases to act as markers or qualifiers in the manner suggested by A. Damasio [in (5), chap. 8] and by A. R. Damasio, D. Tranel, and H. Damasio [in Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, A. L. Benton, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1991), pp. 217]. See also P. R. Montague, P. Dayan, C. Person, T. J. Sejnowski, Nature 377, 725 (1995). This action might occur both at the cortical level and in subcortical structures such as basal ganglia.
7. We envision these biases to act as markers or qualifiers in the manner suggested by A. Damasio [in (5), chap. 8] and by A. R. Damasio, D. Tranel, and H. Damasio [in Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, A. L. Benton, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1991), pp. 217]. See also P. R. Montague, P. Dayan, C. Person, T. J. Sejnowski, Nature 377, 725 (1995). This action might occur both at the cortical level and in subcortical structures such as basal ganglia.
8. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
9. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
10. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
11. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
12. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
13. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
14. On the basis of a series of related studies [A. Bechara, D. Tranel, H. Damasio, S. W. Anderson, A. R. Damasio, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 21, 1210 (1995); D. Tranel, A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, ibid. 22, 1108 (1996)], we believe that the bias mechanism identified here is distinct from other neural mechanisms whose integrity is crucial for decision-making. Such mechanisms include response inhibition [ J. M. Fuster, The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe (Raven, New York, ed. 3, 1996); R. Dias, T. W. Robbins, A. C. Roberts, Nature 380, 69 (1996); A. Diamond, in The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions, A. Diamond, Ed. (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990), vol. 608, pp. 637-669], working memory [ P. S. Goldman-Rakic, in Handbook of Physiology; The Nervous System, F. Plum, Ed. (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 373-401], and selective attention [ M. I. Posner and S. Dehaene, Trends Neurosci. 17, 75 (1994)]. In other words, we propose an addition to mechanisms already recognized as necessary for proper reasoning rather than an alternative to those mechanisms.
15. A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the anticipatory SCRs generated by normal participants and patients (between group), during the pre-punishment and pre-hunch periods (within group), and in association with the bad and good decks (within group) revealed, most importantly, a significant two-way interaction of group with period [F(1,14) = 16.24, P < 0.001]. Subsequent Newman-Keuls tests on these SCRs revealed that, during the pre-punishment (baseline) period, the SCRs associated with the good or bad decks of normals or patients were not significantly different. However, there was a significant increase in the magnitude of these SCRs during the pre-hunch period, relative to the pre-punishment period, but only for normals (P < 0.01). The SCRs from normals during pre-hunch were also significantly higher than the SCRs of patients during both pre-punishment and pre-hunch (P < 0.01). Because all normals generated anticipatory SCRs, whereas all patients did not, Fisher's exact test, based on the hypergeometric distribution, yielded a one-sided P < 0.001. SCRs from normals who selected cards from the bad decks during the hunch period were compared to the SCRs associated with sampling the good decks. The same comparisons of SCRs were done for the conceptual period. Although SCRs from the bad decks during the hunch or the conceptual period were generally higher than those from the good decks, the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, Newman-Keuls tests comparing SCRs from the hunch or the conceptual period to those from the pre-punishment period revealed significant differences in the case of the bad decks (P < 0.01) but not the good decks. This suggests that SCR activity was sustained in the case of the bad decks, but may have been subsiding in the case of the good decks.
16. A similar ANOVA in which mean number of cards selected was used instead of SCRs revealed, most importantly, a significant three-way interaction of group with period with decks [F(1,14) = 6.9, P < 0.02]. With subsequent Newman-Keuls tests, the most relevant comparison was that patients selected significantly more cards from the bad decks relative to the good decks during the pre-hunch period (P < 0.01). By contrast, controls selected more from the good decks relative to the bad decks (the difference was not statistically significant). During the hunch and conceptual periods, controls selected significantly more cards from the good decks relative to the bad decks (P < 0.01). By contrast, patients still selected more cards from the bad decks relative to the good decks during the conceptual period (the difference was not statistically significant).
17. Supported by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke grant PO1 NS19632.