Phineas Gage Essay

Perhaps one of the most well known cases in cognitive psychology is that of Phineas Gage. A man who suffered from an injury to his prefrontal lobes thirty years before the field of Psychology even began (Moulin, 2006). However, psychologists’ continue to study his brain and the effects of his injury and its role in cognitive functions years later. Phineas Gage was a foreman at a railroad who suffered damage to his prefrontal lobes as a result of an accidental explosion in the year 1848. This explosion caused an iron bar about a meter long to be launched completely through Gage’s head and supposedly land about nine meters away. As a result of this accident Gage suffered severe brain damage to his prefrontal lobes, with the left side being almost completely destroyed (Moulin, 2006). There is not documentation of what Gage’s personality was like before the accident and few reports of the changes after the incident, many believed to be exaggerated. Two of the reports that do exist regarding Gage are written by John Martyn Harlow. Harlow was the physician who treated Gage and followed his case (â€Å"III. The Damage to Gage’s Skull and Brain†, 2002). Following his recovery of the accident there were no reports of apparent loss of interllectial function, yet his personality changed drastically. In fact Gage behaved so different that he while he went back to work for the railroad he never was given his job back as foreman (â€Å"II. The Sequelae of the accident, 1848-1868,† 2002). In fact, when asked his friends and acquaintances said he was â€Å"no longer Gage† (Moulin, 2006). Gage lived about eleven years after his accident before dying in 1860 which left people in the medical field curious about him and his condition (Moulin, 2006). In fact the changes in his behavior that were described was the first time that it was revealed that complex functions might be located in the brain. During the time and the immediate time after Gage lived there is not much medical documentation. Therefore it was years later when the exact parts of Gage’s brain that were damaged due to the iron bar were determined (â€Å"II. The sequelae of the accident, 1848-1868,† 2002). When Harlow learned of the passing of Gage, he sought out and received permission from his family to have the body exhumated in December of 1867 (â€Å"II. The sequelae of the accident, 1848-1868,† 2002). He did so in order to study the brain and learn from the injury of the skull and the result that the damages had on Gage’s personality. From the study he was able to determine that Gage suffered damage to three locations; the area under the zygomatic arch, the base of the skull where the iron rod had entered behind the eye, and at the top of the head where the iron rod emerged (â€Å"III. The damage to Gage’s Skull and Brain†, 2002). After studies of Gage’s skull where complete, psychologists’ have been able to take the measurements from the skull and use modern technology to determine the approximate location of the legion. Damage was caused to both the left and right prefrontal cortices in a pattern that caused a defect in rational decision making and the processing of emotion (Damasio, 1994). Studies that have been done since the case of Gage have determined that higher cognitive functions take place in the prefrontal lobes. Some of these functions include working memory, mental imagery, and willed actions that are associated with consciousness (Frith & Dolan, 1998). Psychologists’ have been able to learn from this famous case of Phineas Gage. A man who took no part in experiments and whose injuries were sustained thirty years before the start of Psychology. From this case it has been determined that cognitive functions that can become impaired by prefrontal brain damage are abilities like planning, reasoning, and problem solving. It has also been shown that frontal lobe damage can affect a person’s memory in a subtle manner. While there can be no apparent loss of intellectual function as a result of prefrontal brain lesions it is can still be tragic to the lives of those involved (Gerhand, 1999).