Damasio et al. propose that somatic markers (feedback signals representing homoeostatic and other bodily states) play a pivotal role in our decision-making processes. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) is identified as the cerebral module of most relevance to the somatic system. Emotions are understood by SMH advocates as the feeling of the bodily states reported by the markers. Sufferers of damage to the VMPFC have consistently demonstrated anomalous emotional dispositions accompanied by poor decision making (both time-costly and poor outcomes), in the absence of further detrament (no loss of iq, working memory...). The role of emotions in decision making is proposed to be that of restricting the options put up for conscious consideration, based on biasing signals from the body. There is here a suggesting of tacit learning by the body, prior to conscious knowledge. (See the Iowa gambling task)

Smith and Elsworth (1985) and apparently others since then have identified six "cognitive appraisal dimensions" that can help distinguish emotions. Certainty, pleasantness, attentional activity, control, anticipated effort, and responsibility are all features of appraisal patterns underlying distinct emotions, and helping to define them.

Thus, we may find that certain emotions such as happiness and anger may share more relevant features than two emotions of the same valence (positive/negative). Since happiness and anger both construe appraisals of certainty and a sense of individual control over the situation, such cognitive dimensions might play a bigger part in determining the nature of the decisions made than the simple positive/negative valence distinction alone.

Do such considerations necessary undercut the Somatic Marker Hypothesis? Is there room for it to accept such dimensions to our emotions, without selling itself short?

Many thanks

Adam