Furthermore, several researchers (Wilder et al., 1998; Fernie and Tunney, 2006; Lin et al., 2007; Chiu et al., 2008, 2012; Upton et al., 2012; Steingroever et al., 2013; Seeley et al., 2014) have discovered another critical issue that guides selection behavior during the IGT. All these authors have highlighted the importance of the number of gains or losses obtained, and not their expected value. The decision-makers in these studies considered choosing decks B and D due to the associated high-frequency gains and low-frequency losses, without considering the long-term outcome. Notably, the SMH has mostly based upon evidence gained by comparing the IGT performances and SCR responses of VMPFCs compared to healthy decision makers. An important point to note is that, based on the basic assumption of the SMH, healthy decision-makers should perform well and gradually approach the positive expected value choice in the IGT because of the alarm signals created by somatic markers and vice versa. However, empirical and modeling observations based on the prominent deck B (PDB) phenomenon and gain/loss frequency have clearly demonstrated a decision-maker's inability to consider long-term outcomes (or EV) in the IGT (Wilder et al., 1998; Ahn et al., 2008; Upton et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2013; Seeley et al., 2014; Worthy and Maddox, 2014; Lin et al.; Worthy et al.). Consequently, findings related to the PDB phenomenon and gain/loss frequency have clearly echoed the main points reported in previous literature concerning behavioral decision-making (Lichtenstein et al., 1969; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). In particular, the two viewpoints (SMH vs. behavioral decision) have separately represented foresighted and myopic viewpoints to interpret the decision-maker's behavior. Consequently, the two explanatory schemes were obviously controversial and incongruent in terms of understanding choice behavior under uncertainty.