Abstract :
Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis (SMH) is a prominent neuroscientific hypothesis
about the mechanisms implementing decision-making. This paper argues that, since
its inception, the SMH has not been clearly formulated. It is possible to identify at
least two different hypotheses, which make different predictions: SMH-G, which claims
that somatic states generally implement preferences and are needed to make a decision;
and SMH-S, which specifically claims that somatic states assist decision-making by
anticipating the long-term outcomes of available options. This paper also argues that
neither hypothesis is adequately supported empirically; the task originally proposed to
test SMH is not a good test for SMH-S, and its results do not support SMH-G either. In
addition, it is not clear how SMH-G could be empirically invalidated, given its general
formulation. Suggestions are made that could help provide evidence for SMH-S, and
make SMH-G more specific.
