In anticipatory time window

Normal subjects: emotional arousal indifferent during pre-punishment period, because no loses occurs. But later in pre-hunch period when subjects do not know which deck should be avoided emotional arousal for disadvantageous deck become higher. Emotions start to differentiate decks, but consciously poeple can not differentiate. In hunch period when subjects show clear preference to advantageous deck emotional arousal in clearly differentiated, but they still can’t explain consciously why they choose good deck. Only in conceptual period they can explain their choice consciously.

Patients: SCr do not differentiate two conditions, thus patients do not difference in emotional arousal to good and bad deck. In the consciously stage they can explain which deck is the good one, but they show no preference to good deck.

In sum

• VM patients continue to choose disadvantageous behavior in the gambling task, even after realizing the consequences of their action.

• Emotional biases of normal subject occur even before the subject becomes aware of the goodness or badness of the choice s/he is about to make.

• Knowledge may not be sufficient to ensure advantageous behavior.

Conclusion: Emotions promote rational decisions!

How impaired is the behavior of (Damasio’s) patients with damage to the ventromedial (orbitofrontal cortex) prefrontal cortex

This group of patients have problems with OFC (trauma). Previously they were rational people, very successful. They primarily used rational thinking to make decisions. However, after trauma they started make stupid decisions (Eliot’s case).

Eliot’s case

Elliott, a happily married young man in his thirties - a role model and a natural leader through the ranks of a building firm to become a financial controller at the age of 32. At the age of 35 doctors diagnosed Elliot with a brain tumor. The surgery damaged OFC. Tests of his intelligence, memory, reading and writing comprehension, verbal fluency, visuospatial abilities, and facial recognition revealed average to superior performance.

Within months of the operation, he had quit his job, lost a large sum of money to a scam artist, divorced his wife, lost contact with family and friends, and remarried a prostitute he had known for a month. Employers complained about his tardiness and disorganization. His second marriage ended in divorce six months later, and he moved in with his parents. Here then is the paradox of OFC: How can damage to this area leave so many of our cognitive abilities intact, yet devastate our decisions.

In sum Antonio Damasio’s patients: 1.have frontal lobe disorders, 2.have averaged or above averaged intelligence 3.are unexpressive of emotions and unusually rational, 4. in real life patients make disastrous decisions. They can lose jobs, friend, family, colleagues, thus Unemotional people, ironically, can't react rationally!!!!!

How we can explain this: см. Предыдущий вопрос. Насколько я поняла, у этих пациентов была та же проблема в жизни, что и в игре. Они не могли использовать эмоции для оценки результатов того или иного действия и того, что за этим последует. Поэтому, не смотря на то, что интеллект не был поврежден, их неспособность эмоционально реагировать на anticipated punishment/reward приводила их к таким ужасным решениям.

И на лекции он что-то еще про маркеры говорил, что у них эти маркеры не работают. Поэтому они не могут сделать выбор, т.к. события не ассоциируется с эмоциями. Такие пациенты не могут выбрать например, в какой ресторан пойти.