(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 5 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | emotional influence on value-based decision making— “To date, two primary means by which emotion can influence decisions have been identified.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Much like other cognitive functions, these studies suggest that emotion modulates the value computation, thus changing the choice.” | |
| method — evidence | — “This chapter reviews current research examining the relation between emotion and decision making by delineating how different components of emotion influence unique aspects of the decision process.” | |
| mechanism | induced moods set appraisal tendencies - a sad or disgusted state makes the person appraise unrelated options in a mood-congruent way, which shifts the subjective value assigned to them— “To explain this striking effect, Lerner and colleagues (2004) suggested that moods inspire appraisal tendencies, or tendencies to appraise unrelated events, such as the subjective value of a choice option, in a manner consistent with the mood.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | stress impairs prefrontal function and enhances striatal/dopaminergic habit circuits, so the decision process falls back on automatic or habitual responding— “The research on stress suggests that the decision process may become more habitual or automatic under stress, perhaps because of the effect of stress on PFC function, the striatum and/or the dopaminergic system.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | amygdala input to the striatum is proposed as the circuit that folds an emotional reaction into the subjective-value computation— “Although the neural systems mediating the incorporation of emotional reactions into the calculation of subjective value are not clearly delineated as of yet, there is evidence that one circuit might involve the amygdala’s input to the striatum.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | a mismatch between behaviour and attitude produces negative affect, and preference is revised after the fact to become consonant with the behaviour so that the negative affect is removed— “To reduce this negative affect, after we have engaged in some behavior that is inconsistent with our preferences, we have a tendency to change our preference so that it is consonant with that behavior.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | A CATEGORY FALSIFIED BY ONE OF ITS OWN MEMBERS: `the hippocampus, a key component of the limbic system in MacLean's formulation, was shown to be critical for memory, a basic cognitive function, rather than for emotion.` And the reverse also failed - `phylogenetically newer regions of the neocortex ... were found to be important in emotion`. The category leaked in both directions at once.— “For example, the hippocampus, a key component of the limbic system in MacLean’s formulation, was shown to be critical for memory, a basic cognitive function, rather than for emotion. In addition, phylogenetically newer regions of the neocortex (newer than the cingulate cortex), such as the orbitofrontal cortex, were found to be important in… | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | AND THE FIRST REPAIR WAS TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP, NOT THE DEFINITION: `to modify the limbic system concept, adding and subtracting brain areas to more accurately reflect the emotion/cognition division`. The name and its organising distinction were held fixed while the extension was edited to fit - a repair mode nothing else in this corpus records. (The sentence opens `In response to such findings, some researchers tried` on the previous page; the span starts after the page break because the staged text wedges a DOI, a page number, a copyright line and a running header into the middle of it.)— “to modify the limbic system concept, adding and subtracting brain areas to more accurately reflect the emotion/cognition division” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | THE REPAIR FAILED BECAUSE THE DISTINCTION ITSELF DISSOLVED: `there is no clean dividing line in the brain between regions underlying emotion and cognition, and there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A SINGLE UNIFIED SYSTEM that drives emotion.` Once the boundary the category was drawn to mark is denied, no membership list can save the name.— “More recently, however, it has become apparent that there is no clean dividing line in the brain between regions underlying emotion and cognition, and there is no evidence for a single unified “system” that drives emotion” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND WHAT REPLACES IT IS NOT ANOTHER CATEGORY BUT A FINER GRAIN: `In its place has emerged a more fine-grained analysis of specific brain circuitries underlying the broad range of means by which emotion can influence cognition, and vice versa.` The successor to a failed umbrella term is a refusal to have an umbrella term.— “In its place has emerged a more fine-grained analysis of specific brain circuitries underlying the broad range of means by which emotion can influence cognition, and vice versa” | mechanisms[7] |
| contradicts | MacLean's limbic system concept— “For these reasons, affective neuroscientists now often argue that the limbic system concept is obsolete and should be abandoned (Dagleish, 2004; Gazzaniga, 2004; LeDoux, 2000; Phelps, 2009).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the Risk-As-Feelings Hypothesis (Loewenstein et al., 2001)— “A similar idea was proposed with the Risk-As-Feelings Hypothesis (Loewenstein et al., 2001), which suggested that affective responses to risk in decisions may drive choices.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | reverse inference - the named move from an observed activation to the presence of a psychological construct, whose success the chapter reports as questioned— “Inferring the presence of a psychological construct from brain activation is known as reverse inference.” | senses[0] |
| sense | incidental affect - a stipulated sense: a baseline affective state unrelated to the decision that can nevertheless shift choices— “We define incidental affect as a baseline affective state that is unrelated to the decision, but can, nevertheless, shift choices.” | senses[1] |
| sense | `limbic system` - THE ORIGINAL SENSE: `the emotional center of the brain, with the phylogenetically newer portions of the neocortex underlying cognitive functions, such as reason`. The category exists to carry one distinction: emotion here, reason there.— “Over time, the limbic system became known as the emotional center of the brain, with the phylogenetically newer portions of the neocortex underlying cognitive functions, such as reason” | senses[2] |
| sense | `limbic system` - THE TERMINAL SENSE: `obsolete and should be abandoned`, argued by `affective neuroscientists` with four citations behind it. Not withdrawn by a committee and not renamed - talked out of use by the practitioners of the field.— “For these reasons, affective neuroscientists now often argue that the limbic system concept is obsolete and should be abandoned (Dagleish, 2004; Gazzaniga, 2004; LeDoux, 2000; Phelps, 2009)” | senses[3] |
| edge | incidental affect —is-a→ affective state— “We define incidental affect as a baseline affective state that is unrelated to the decision, but can, nevertheless, shift choices.” | concept_edges[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the stress-to-habit account: AS OF YET, THERE IS NO DIRECT NEUROSCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF DIMINISHED PFC INVOLVEMENT IN THESE TASKS— “However, it is important to note that as of yet, there is no direct neuroscientific evidence of diminished PFC involvement in these tasks.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the stress and decision-making literature as a whole: IT PRESENTS INTRIGUING IDEAS, BUT LEAVES MANY OPEN QUESTIONS— “The collection of findings on decision making under stress conducted to date presents intriguing ideas, but leaves many open questions.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the choice-blindness interpretation: PARTICIPANTS DID NOT SYSTEMATICALLY RATE THEIR PREFERENCES FOR OBJECTS BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER - so preference change cannot be separated from preference revelation— “These studies on choice blindness present intriguing results, but they are limited in that participants did not systematically rate their preferences for objects both before and after they made their choices.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that an activation demonstrates an emotional process: the chapter names this reverse inference and reports its success as questioned, especially for multi-function regions— “Inferring the presence of a psychological construct from brain activation is known as reverse inference. The success of reverse inference as a scientific technique to investigate psychological phenomena has been questioned, especially for brain regions that are known to have multiple functions” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — this chapter as a survey of the emotion-and-decision literature: statements deriving exclusively from reverse inference were excluded from it by design— “For this reason, in this chapter we only discuss findings that measure and/or manipulate affective processes. Statements about emotion that derive exclusively from reverse inference form no part of the review” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — earlier neuroeconomic findings linking irrational choice to emotion: the chapter states the link was often assumed a priori and taken as verified by activation in regions previously linked to emotion— “Instead, it was often assumed, a priori, that “irrational” choices were linked to emotion and that activation of brain regions previously linked to emotional responses verified the emotional quality of these decisions.” | limitations[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The stress-to-habit account reviewed lacks direct neural evidence in humans.— “However, it is important to note that as of yet, there is no direct neuroscientific evidence of diminished PFC involvement in these tasks.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The stress and decision-making literature reviewed is not yet conclusive.— “The collection of findings on decision making under stress conducted to date presents intriguing ideas, but leaves many open questions.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The choice-blindness studies reviewed cannot separate preference change from preference revelation because preferences were not rated before and after.— “These studies on choice blindness present intriguing results, but they are limited in that participants did not systematically rate their preferences for objects both before and after they made their choices.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The inference from brain activation to a psychological construct is named and reported as questioned, especially for regions with multiple functions.— “Inferring the presence of a psychological construct from brain activation is known as reverse inference. The success of reverse inference as a scientific technique to investigate psychological phenomena has been questioned, especially for brain regions that are known to have multiple functions” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The review deliberately excludes an entire class of evidence: findings that rest only on reverse inference are not reviewed at all.— “For this reason, in this chapter we only discuss findings that measure and/or manipulate affective processes. Statements about emotion that derive exclusively from reverse inference form no part of the review” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The chapter describes the earlier practice it is correcting as assuming its conclusion a priori.— “Instead, it was often assumed, a priori, that “irrational” choices were linked to emotion and that activation of brain regions previously linked to emotional responses verified the emotional quality of these decisions.” | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The emotion/cognition division inherited from the limbic system concept fails anatomically: no boundary separates emotional from cognitive brain regions, and no single unified system drives emotion.— “More recently, however, it has become apparent that there is no clean dividing line in the brain between regions underlying emotion and cognition, and there is no evidence for a single unified “system” that drives emotion.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | A second main route by which emotion influences decisions is by entering the emotional reaction to options or outcomes into the value calculation.— “The second primary means by which emotion can influence decisions is thus by incorporating the emotional reaction to the choice options or outcomes into the value calculation.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The studies suggest that emotion modulates the value computation, thereby changing the choice.— “Much like other cognitive functions, these studies suggest that emotion modulates the value computation, thus changing the choice.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | There does not seem to be a single mechanism by which incidental affect influences choices.— “Importantly, there does not seem to be a single mechanism by which incidental affect can influence choices.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Reappraising an unfair ultimatum offer changes decisions, whereas merely suppressing the outward expression of emotion does not - so it is the reinterpretation, not the display, that carries the effect.— “These findings suggest that simply suppressing the expression of emotion is not sufficient to change decision-making patterns, but reinterpreting an emotional response to the offer of an unfair split can lead to a change in decision tendencies.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | That cognitive reappraisal of a choice option's emotional significance changes decisions is treated as strong evidence that emotion enters the subjective-value calculation itself. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Merely believing they had chosen an item increased participants' preference for it. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | The chapter discusses only findings that measure and/or manipulate affective processes. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | Less than 30% — proportion of participants who noticed that the face they had chosen had been covertly swapped, in the choice-blindness study the chapter reports | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| variable | risk taking (dependent) | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | gender (mediator) | content_tags.variables[1] |
| definition | incidental affect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | reverse inference Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | mood Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | stress Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | physiological arousal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | skin conductance response (SCR) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | temporal discounting Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | future anhedonia Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| evidence status note | definition — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:1). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| definition | reconsolidation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[8] |
| definition | Somatic Marker Hypothesis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[9] |
| definition | construal level theory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[10] |
| concept | reverse inference Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | incidental affect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | affective state Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | limbic system — not defined in this paper's own words; A CATEGORY THIS CHAPTER REPORTS AS DEAD - once the brain's emotional centre, now argued by affective neuroscientists to be obsolete and to be abandoned, with no unified system found behind the name Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | hippocampus — not defined in this paper's own words; the member that broke the category - a key component of the limbic system that turned out to serve MEMORY, a cognitive function, on the wrong side of the emotion/cognition line the category was built to draw Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824