Skip to main content
Log in

Hemispheric activation differences in novice and expert clinicians during clinical decision making

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 25 July 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

Clinical decision making requires knowledge, experience and analytical/non-analytical types of decision processes. As clinicians progress from novice to expert, research indicates decision-making becomes less reliant on foundational biomedical knowledge and more on previous experience. In this study, we investigated how knowledge and experience were reflected in terms of differences in neural areas of activation. Novice and expert clinicians diagnosed simple or complex (easy, hard) cases while functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were collected. Our results highlight key differences in the neural areas activated in novices and experts during the clinical decision-making process. fMRI data were collected from ten second year medical students (novices) and ten practicing gastroenterologists (experts) while they diagnosed sixteen (eight easy and eight hard) clinical cases via multiple-choice questions. Behavioral data were collected for diagnostic accuracy (correct/incorrect diagnosis) and time taken to assign a clinical diagnosis. Two analyses were performed with the fMRI data. First, data from easy and hard cases were compared within respective groups (easy > hard, hard > easy). Second, neural differences between novices and experts (novice > expert, expert > novice) were assessed. Experts correctly diagnosed more cases than novices and made their diagnoses faster than novices on both easy and hard cases (all p’s < 0.05). Time taken to diagnose hard cases took significantly longer for both novices and experts. While similar neural areas were activated in both novices and experts during the decision making process, we identified significant hemispheric activation differences between novice and expert clinicians when diagnosing hard clinical cases. Specifically, novice clinicians had greater activations in the left anterior temporal cortex and left ventral lateral prefrontal cortex whereas expert clinicians had greater activations in the right dorsal lateral, right ventral lateral, and right parietal cortex. Hemispheric differences in activation were not observed between novices and experts while diagnosing easy clinical cases. While clinical decision-making engaged the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in both novices and experts, interestingly we observed expertise related differences in the regions and hemispheres of PFC activation between these groups for hard clinical cases. Specifically, in novices we observed activations in left hemisphere neural regions associated with factual rule-based knowledge, whereas in experts we observed right hemisphere activation in neural regions associated with experiential knowledge. Importantly, at the neural level, our data highlight differences in so called type 2 clinical decision-making processes related to prior knowledge and experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 25 July 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

References

  • Amaro, E, Jr., & Barker, G. J. (2006). Study design in fMRI: Basic principles. Brain and Cognition, 60(3), 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, F. G. (2011). Statistical analysis of FMRI Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attwell, D., & Iadecola, C. (2002). The neural basis of functional brain imaging signals. Trends in Neurosciences, 25(12), 621–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami, P., Graham, S. J., Grantcharov, T. P., Cusimano, M. D., Rotstein, O. D., Mansur, A., & Schweizer, T. A. (2014). Neuroanatomical correlates of laparoscopic surgery training. Surgical Endoscopy, 28(7), 2189–2198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbey, A. K., & Patterson, R. (2011). Architecture of explanatory inference in the human prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00162.

  • Bever, T. G., & Chiarello, R. J. (1974). Cerebral dominance in musicians and nonmusicians. Science, 185(4150), 537–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza, R., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coderre, S., Wright, B., & McLaughlin, K. (2010). To think is good: Querying an initial hypothesis reduces diagnostic error in medical students. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 85(7), 1125–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2005). The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadian D’anesthésie, 52, R1–R8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2009a). A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 84(8), 1022–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2009b). Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: Applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(S1), 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durning, S. J., Graner, J., Artino, A. R., Pangaro, L. N., Beckman, T., Holmboe, E., et al. (2012). Using functional neuroimaging combined with a think-aloud protocol to explore clinical reasoning expertise in internal medicine. Military Medicine, 177(9 Suppl), 72–78.

  • Elstein, A., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical problem solving: An analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2005). What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 39(1), 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fangmeier, T., Knauff, M., Ruff, C. C., & Sloutsky, V. (2006). FMRI evidence for a three-stage model of deductive reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(3), 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 123(7), 1293–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V. (2007). Anatomy of deductive reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 435–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruppen, L. D., & Frohna, A. Z. (2002). Clinical reasoning. In D. I. Newble (Ed.), International handbook of research in medical education (pp. 205–230). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Heeger, D. J., & Ress, D. (2002). What does fMRI tell us about neuronal activity? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(2), 142–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hruska, P., Krigolson, O., Coderre, S., McLaughlin, K., Cortese, F., Doig, C., et al. (2015). Working memory, reasoning, and expertise in medicine - insights into their relationships using functional neuroimaging. Advances in Health Sciences Education. doi:10.1007/s1049-015-9649-2.

  • Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2009). Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawczyk, D. C. (2002). Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of human decision making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(6), 631–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L, I. I. I. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., Rushworth, M. F. S., Walton, M. E., Watanabe, M., & Sakagami, M. (2007). Functional specialization of the primate frontal cortex during decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(31), 8170–8173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logothetis, N. K. (2003). The underpinnings of the BOLD functional magnetic resonance imaging signal. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 23(10), 3963–3971.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J. (2004). On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and the framing effect. Brain and Cognition, 55(3), 572–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2005). Research in clinical reasoning: Past history and current trends. Medical Education, 39(4), 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V. L., Evans, D. A., & Groen, G. J. (1989). Biomedical knowledge and clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelaccia, T., Tardif, J., Triby, E., & Charlin, B. (2011). An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: The dual-process theory. Medical Education Online, 16. doi:10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890.

  • Poldrack, R. A. (2007). Region of interest analysis for fMRI. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raichle, M. E., & Mintun, M. A. (2006). Brain work and brain imaging. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 29(1), 449–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raman, M., McLaughlin, K., Violato, C., Rostom, A., Allard, J. P., & Coderre, S. (2010). Teaching in small portions dispersed over time enhances long-term knowledge retention. Medical Teacher, 32(3), 250–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, T., Hocking, J., Noppeney, U., Mechelli, A., Gorno-Tempini, M., Patterson, K., & Price, C. (2006). Anterior temporal cortex and semantic memory: Reconciling findings from neuropsychology and functional imaging. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(3), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savoy, R. L. (2001). History and future directions of human brain mapping and functional neuroimaging. Acta Psychologica, 107(1–3), 9–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savoy, R. L. (2006). Using small numbers of subjects in fMRI-based research. IEEE: The Quarterly Magazine of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 25(2), 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, K. J., Evans, A. C., Marrett, S., & Neelin, P. (1992). A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 12, 900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, K. J., Marrett, S., Neelin, P., Vandal, A. C., Friston, K. J., & Evans, A. C. (1996). A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Human Brain Mapping, 4(1), 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent G. Hecker.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9787-9.

Appendix: fMRI basics

Appendix: fMRI basics

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) images are made possible by tracking hemodynamic response to neural activity over time (Huettel et al. 2009; Logothetis 2003). When neurons become active in response to a task or demand, hemodynamic changes of increased blood volume, increased blood flow and alterations in oxygenation occur (Attwell and Iadecola 2002; Heeger and Ress 2002). These changes produce the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal, which can be simplistically described as a ratio of oxygenated to deoxygenated hemoglobin (Ashby 2011). The underlying assumption in fMRI is that increased oxyhemoglobin concentration indicates nearby neural activity (Savoy 2001).

A block design was chosen for this research, where tasks were presented in a sequential manner with alternating periods of stimulation and rest (Amaro and Barker 2006). Specifically, experimental blocks of clinical decision-making tasks (multiple choice questions), alternated with rest blocks called fixation periods. Fixation periods served as baseline, and can be thought of as a control condition during which no task is being performed (Raichle and Mintun 2006). In fixation periods, no text was presented and no response was expected from participants; it involved simply looking at a plus sign (fixation cross) on the screen for 10 s intervals.

To determine neural areas of activation in clinical decision making, averaged neural activity across fixation trials were contrasted to averaged neural activity in defined clinical decision making experimental blocks (answering MCQ). When differences in level of activation were found to be greater during the experimental phase of the task (i.e. during decision making) than activation during fixation (baseline/rest), neural activity is interpreted as being attributed to the cognitive process of clinical decision making (Amaro and Barker 2006).

Subject data obtained in this fMRI research are representative of each participant’s brain. These pieces of data are called voxels, analogous to 3D pixels, and are volumetric in nature (Ashby 2011). Each voxel is represented by 3D coordinates (x, y, z), which are used to identify associated structural areas using brain atlas tools.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hruska, P., Hecker, K.G., Coderre, S. et al. Hemispheric activation differences in novice and expert clinicians during clinical decision making. Adv in Health Sci Educ 21, 921–933 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9648-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9648-3

Keywords

Navigation