The return of Phineas Cage

Question 1

The return of Phineas Gage study

Answer 1

1. Damasio et al.

2. 1994

Question 2

Background to Damasio et al.

Answer 2

1. Phineas Gage was a 25 year old construction worker in 1848 who was involved in an accident. In the USA, he worked for a railroad company and was in charge of detonations to level uneven terrain so they could lay new trackers.
2. An explosion caused an iron rod to be fired through his head.
3. It caused serious damage to his face and the frontal lobe fo his brain however he survived the accident and recovered quickly
4. His personality thought underwent a permanent change from calm and responsible to irresponsible and rude
5. He died 12 years after the injury due to severe epilepsy from the accident and psychologists requested his skull to study it

Question 3

Aim of Damasio et al.

Answer 3

1. In 1994, Damasio wanted to build a model of Gage’s skull using his actual skull as a guide so that they could map out how the iron rod passed through his head
2. Collecting data from Gage’s skulls, researchers were able to create a 3D representation of the skull, including the holes made by the iron rod
3. This meant they were able to identify which parts of his brain were most likely to have been badly damaged in the accident
4. Damasio wanted to discover is any other part of the brain had also been damaged

Question 4

Procedure of Damasio et al.

Answer 4

1. Damasio started by taking pictures and measurements to start his replica of Phineas Gage’s skull.
2. From the information gathered, they built an electronic 3D replica model of the Gage’s skull.
3. As the iron rod had been buried with Gage, they were able to take actual measurements of the rod. It was 3 cm in diameter and 109 cm long.
4. They compared this to the parts of the skull that were damaged in order to work out the likely path that the iron bar would have taken when it went through his head.
5. The had to match possible entry and exit points for the iron rod on their model.
6. There were 20 different entry points and 16 exit points that were tested in an attempt to try to find the most likely path taken by the rod.
7. They narrowed it down to the 5 most likely paths, and used the virtual replica model to map out which areas would have been damaged in each case.

Question 5

Results of Damasio et al.

Answer 5

1. Damasio et al. found that there was likely to have been damage in both the right and left hemispheres of the frontal lobe in Gage’s brain
2. They were able to confidently assume that the brain damage suffered in the accident was likely to only have affected the frontal lobe, and no other part of the brain
3. The iron bar would have passed through the left eye socket and upwards through the head
4. This meant that there was likely to have been more damage to the underlying white mater in the left hemisphere than in the right frontal lobe
5. The white matter is where all of the neurons pass their messages along the axon fibres so damaging this area would have meant Gage was unable to pass neural messages in this part of his brain, making it useless
6. The damage in both hemispheres seemed to be worse in the middle of the underside (ventromedial region) while the top edges of the frontal lobes (dorsolateral region) were less likely to have been affected

Question 6

White Matter

Answer 6

brain and spinal cord tissue, consisting mainly of nerve fibres (axons)

Question 7

Conclusion of Damasio et al.

Answer 7

1. The researchers compared areas of Gage’s brain that were most likely to have been damaged with the reported changes in his personality after the accident
2. From this, they concluded that the ventromedial area of the frontal lobes seems to be important for making sensible decisions and controlling our impulses and emotions around people
3. Damasio et al. had evidence of 12 other patients with similar frontal lobe damage, who all showed the same problems with impulse and emotional control
4. This knowledge can be used to predict the behaviour of someone who suffers brain damage in these areas in the future.

Question 8

Strengths of Damasio et al.

Answer 8

1. Researchers were able to use modern-day technology to investigate data from 1848 meaning that the results can be given more scientific status. Thus use of the computer mode meant the evidence could actually be seen rather than just inferred from the information so it increases the scientific understanding of the study
2. Due to the study, we can now make predictions about what changes to behaviour we might expect if someone has damaged their frontal lobes. If a patient had damaged the frontal lobe in a similar area to Gage, we can predict that they might be more impulsive and less able to control their behaviour. This knowledge can help family and friends understand what might happen and help to treat the person

Question 9

Weaknesses of Damasio et al.

Answer 9

1. Even though an exact replica of Gage’s skull was used, the information about how the accident happened is based on reports originally gathered over 150 years ago which means the information may lack accuracy and reliability
2. There is also a problem in generalising the information about this case study to other people because the brain damage was unique to Gage. It is ver unlikely someone else will have exactly the same damage, so the information might not be very useful.