Open the app
  1. Home
  2. Lessons
  3. GCSE Psychology
  4. Key study: Damasio et al. (1994) the return of Phineas Gage

Key study: Damasio et al. (1994) the return of Phineas Gage

🎬 The doodle video for this lesson is coming soon. Subscribe on YouTube to see it first.

In 1848 a railway worker survived an iron rod passing through his head. Nearly 150 years later, scientists used modern technology to work out exactly which parts of his brain were damaged.

Background: Phineas Gage

In 1848, Phineas Gage was a railway construction foreman in Vermont, USA. An explosion drove a tamping iron (an iron rod over a metre long) up through his left cheek and out of the top of his skull.
He survived, but his doctor, John Harlow, reported a personality change: he became impulsive, rude and unable to stick to plans. Friends said he was 'no longer Gage'.
Gage died in 1860. His skull and the tamping iron were kept in a museum at Harvard.

Aim, procedure and results

Aim: to identify which brain areas were damaged in Gage's injury, using modern neuroimaging techniques, and so explain his changed behaviour.
Procedure: the researchers photographed and took precise measurements of Gage's skull. They used computer modelling to build a 3D reconstruction of a skull matching Gage's, and tested possible trajectories of the rod, keeping only paths consistent with the entry and exit wounds and with him surviving.
Results: the damage was in the frontal lobes, affecting the ventromedial region of the prefrontal cortex in both hemispheres, while the dorsolateral region was spared. Areas for movement and language were spared.
Conclusion: damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex explains Gage's problems with rational decision-making and processing emotion. Modern patients with damage to the same area show similar problems.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths: used objective, scientific technology (computer modelling and imaging) rather than guesswork; shows how psychology has changed over time. The findings match other patients with similar damage.
Weaknesses: based on a skull, not the brain itself, so the damage is an estimate. It is one case, so it is hard to generalise. Reports of Gage's personality change were second-hand and may have been exaggerated, and little is known about his personality before the accident.
Worked example

Why did Damasio et al. need computer modelling instead of studying Gage's brain directly?

  1. Gage died in 1860, and only his skull was kept, not his brain.
  2. Modelling the rod's path through a reconstructed skull showed which brain areas it must have passed through.

Answer: His brain was not preserved, so they modelled the rod's path through a 3D reconstruction of his skull to estimate the damage.

Key idea

Damasio et al. used measurements and 3D computer modelling of Phineas Gage's skull to find the rod's likely path. It damaged the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in both frontal lobes, explaining his poor decision-making and emotional changes. Scientific, but based on one skull, not a brain.

Check you have got it

Answer 6 quick questions with instant marking. If you get one wrong, GCSE-ready shows you why and gives you another go. It is free, and you do not need an account.