The relevance of neuroscientific research for understanding clinical reasoning

Authors

Jerome. I. Rotgans, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeFollow
Naomi Low-Beer, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Lucy Victoria Rosby, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract

The current debate on clinical reasoning revolves primarily around Dual-Process Theory. This theory suggests that there are two distinctively separate cognitive systems underlying thinking and reasoning; commonly referred to as System 1 and System 2.1 System 1 is considered intuitive, fast and reliant on automatic activation of “illness scripts” stored in memory and leading to effortless pattern recognition. System 2 on the other hand is considered analytic, slow, deliberate, and systematic. The clinical reasoning literature is divided; one group of researchers defending System 1 reasoning as the hallmark of expert decision-making, whereas the other camp of researchers considers System 2 reasoning as superior and more likely to achieve diagnostic accuracy.2,3 Some also argue that System 2 is less prone to biases (premature closure, confirmation bias etc.).4

Recommended Citation

Rotgans, Jerome. I.; Low-Beer, Naomi; and Rosby, Lucy Victoria (2016) "The relevance of neuroscientific research for understanding clinical reasoning," Health Professions Education: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 1.
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpe.2016.02.001
Available at: https://hpe.researchcommons.org/journal/vol2/iss1/1