introduction to that issue

Pin It

dieselfashion, member

no recommendations

Add Comment
Print

As these editors wrote in the introduction to that issue: Within neuroscience, for example, we are awash with data that in many cases lack a coherent theoretical understanding (a quick trip to the poster floor of the Society for Neurosciences meeting can be convincing on this point).

Conversely, in economics, it has become abundantly evident that the pristine assumptions of the “ standard economic model ” – that individuals operate as optimal decision makers in maximizing utility – are in direct violation of even the most basic facts about human behavior. TWO TRENDS, ONE GOAL INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF NEUROECONOMICS 10 1. INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF NEUROECONOMICS In that issue, although all of the articles are by neurobiologists, particular attention is drawn to normative theories of decision. Of especial interest are articles by Montague and Berns (2002) , Schultz (2002) , Dayan and Balleine (2002) , Gold and Shadlen (2002) , and Glimcher (2002) , which all point towards the interaction of normative models and neurobiology. Interestingly, the issue draws attention to the ongoing debate regarding the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine in reward processing, and draws upon previous work that had identified normative or near-normative models of learning that posit a role for dopamine.

(This is a subject of tremendous importance to neuroeconomists today, and forms the focus of the third section of this volume.) What followed was a literal flood of decision- making studies in the neuroscientific literature, many of which relied on normative economic theory. Figure 1.1 documents this flood, plotting the number of papers published from 1990 to 2006 that list both “ brain” and “ decision making” as keywords. At the end of this initial period, a set of summary reviews began to emerge that served as manifestos for the emerging neuroeconomic discipline. In 2003 Glimcher published a book, directed primarily at neuroscientists, that reviewed the history of neuroscience and argued that this history was striking in its lack of normative models for higher cognitive function ( Glimcher, 2003 ).

 Glimcher proposed that economics could serve as the source for this much needed normative theory. Shortly thereafter the Camerer, Loewenstein, and Prelec paper was published under the title “ Neuroeconomics” ( Camerer et al. , 2005); this also served as a manifesto, but from the economic side. Within the economic community a role similar to that of the Neuron special issue was played by a special issue on neuroeconomics presented by the journal Games and Economic Behavior (Volume 52, Issue 2) and edited by the economist Aldo Rustichini, which appeared shortly after this in 2005. Within the economic community this issue was hugely influential and served, to a large degree, to define neuroeconomics.

Much Holding

Add Comment Print

What are you sewing for the New Year?  

Back to List

deviations from normative theory