When anticipatory SCRs do not develop, a support mechanism for making advantageous decisions under conflict and uncertainty falls apart, as was critically demonstrated in patients with prefrontal damage 6.Let me preface my answer with two important points: Although higher anticipatory SCRs probably relate to the magnitudes of reward or punishment hidden in the deck from which subjects are about to select, depending on whether anticipatory SCRs reflect negative or positive somatic states, higher anticipatory SCRs also coincide with the long-term consequences-anticipation of a long-term negative or positive outcome. Also, patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions (which preclude the development of these anticipatory SCRs) performed disadvantageously on that modified task, just as they did on the original task.

Our own work 8, 9 with another modified gambling task that preserved conflict and uncertainty, but switched reward and punishment, revealed approach behavior coupled with high anticipatory SCRs. In the modified task, higher anticipatory SCRs to good decks may reflect a positive somatic state that promotes approach.

In the original task, the higher anticipatory SCRs relative to bad decks reflected a negative somatic state that promoted avoidance of bad options. This suggests a possible interpretation of the authors' results, namely that their task inverts the marker signal. However, somatic markers can be either positive or negative, and under conflict and uncertainty they help reject or endorse an option of action.

They assume that somatic markers can only be negative and only precede options leading to a bad outcome.

The authors believe that if somatic markers drive the evaluation of the goodness or badness of the decks, then higher anticipatory SCRs should precede picking from bad decks (decks C & D) in the modified task.

What does marker mean in gambling