ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015
Do intuitive and deliberate judgments rely on two distinct neural systems? A case study in face processing.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Common and Distinct Neural Mechanisms Underlying Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion: Evidence From the Neuroimaging Meta-Analysis.Human brain mapping · 2025Pooled it
- "Old Wine in a New Bottle": Are Different Terminologies on Dual Processing Conceptually the Same?Europe's journal of psychology · 2026Article
- Pathfinding: a neurodynamical account of intuition.Communications biology · 2025Review
- Neural Underpinnings of Financial Decision Bias in Older Adults: Putative Theoretical Models and a Way to Reconcile Them.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- A Similarity-Based Process for Human Judgment in the Parietal Cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Scrutinizing the Emotional Nature of Intuitive Coherence Judgments.Journal of behavioral decision making · 2017Article
- Reason's Enemy Is Not Emotion: Engagement of Cognitive Control Networks Explains Biases in Gain/Loss Framing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017Article
- Intuitive Face Judgments Rely on Holistic Eye Movement Pattern.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Search and Coherence-Building in Intuition and Insight Problem Solving.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Intuition and Insight: Two Processes That Build on Each Other or Fundamentally Differ?Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arguably the most influential models of human decision-making today are based on the assumption that two separable systems - intuition and deliberation - underlie the judgments that people make. Our recent work is among the first to present neural evidence contrary to the predictions of these dual-systems accounts. We measured brain activations using functional magnetic resonance imaging while participants were specifically instructed to either intuitively or deliberately judge the authenticity of emotional facial expressions. Results from three different analyses revealed both common brain networks of activation across decision mode and differential activations as a function of strategy adherence. We take our results to contradict popular dual-systems accounts that propose a clear-cut dichotomy of the processing systems, and to support rather a unified model. According to this, intuitive and deliberate judgment processes rely on the same rules, though only the former are thought to be characterized by non-conscious processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.