Aahana Banerjee
The field of neuroscience acts as a bridge between the disciplines of biology and psychology, dealing with the structure and function of the nervous system in general, and the brain in particular. The scope of this field is vast, given the complexities and ambiguities of these intricate structures and with advancements in technology and sophisticated techniques, more information is constantly being unveiled. In this blog post, I shall address the significance of one case study - that of Phineas Gage - and its invaluable contribution to the field of neuroscience.
The famous case of Phineas Gage continues to prevail as one of the most unique and remarkable case studies in history. In 1848, Gage met with an accident while preparing a railroad during which an iron rod pierced his left cheek and drove through his skull. Miraculously, he not only survived the incident but, after brief convulsions, was able to promptly communicate and walk to seek medical assistance (Cherry, 2021). According to Dr. John Harlow, who had treated him, Gage remained conscious and could recount the incident accurately, displaying no immediately obvious signs of memory failure or damage.
Once he was discharged from the hospital, it was reported that Phineas Gage’s personality had undergone considerable changes. Given the progress of his recovery, it was assumed that Gage would be fit to eventually return to his former profession as a foreman. However, due to these supposedly dramatic personality changes that led to social inhibition, he was deemed unsuitable and inappropriate for that work environment. The extent of this was such that after the accident, he struggled to maintain permanent employment anywhere (Guy-Evans, 2020). However, Gage reportedly reverted somewhat to his original personality later in life, although it is acknowledged that these reports may be exaggerated.
It was found in 1994, upon using neuroimaging techniques to reconstruct his skull, that Gage had incurred serious damage to his left and right pre-frontal cortices, resulting in difficulties with emotions and rational decision making (Guy-Evans, 2020). Moreover, the iron rod destroyed approximately 4% of his grey matter and 11% of his white matter (Cherry, 2021). The regenerative properties of white matter provide a plausible explanation for Gage’s miraculous recovery following his accident. Furthermore, Gage’s ultimate return to his “normal” personality may be indicative that he might have recovered some lost functions over time. This is reflective of brain plasticity (Guy-Evans, 2020) or neuroplasticity which refers to the ability of the brain to adapt to changes as a result of experience (Cherry, 2021). This proves to be extremely interesting as it might imply that even such massive brain damage can be reversible.
The case of Phineas Gage not only acted as an inspiration for neuropsychiatric research worldwide but also provided indispensable insights to neuroscientists, specifically about localisation of brain functions. It exemplified that damage to the frontal lobes may impact and alter personality and emotions, prior to which it was believed that they held no function or stake in human behavioural tendencies. This revelation drove neurologist David Ferrier to examine the function of frontal lobes in the brain. Upon extracting the frontal lobes of monkeys, he noted stark alterations in their behaviours and personalities, despite the absence of any physiological changes (Teles, 2020), thereby confirming scientist’s postulations about the same.
It is now understood that the pre-frontal cortex plays an imperative role in the organisation of behaviour and emotion. Furthermore, neuroscientists continue to examine and re-examine Gage’s case and are often able to uncover new information. The study by Raitu et al., (2004) revealed that the extent of damage to Gage’s cerebral cortex was less pervasive than initially believed; only some regions of the left frontal lobe were injured as a consequence of the impact of the iron rod. Newer brain imaging techniques such as white matter (WM) mapping, computed tomography (CT) imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), etc. provide neuroscientists with the utility to more accurately examine the brain as demonstrated by Van Horn et al., (2012), whose research supported that of Raitu et al. It is thus evident that the case of Phineas Gage, which emerged at a time when neuroscience was relatively new, has played an influential role in the development and evolution of this sphere. Additionally. in attempts to gain a deeper and more specific understanding of the brain and its regional functions, it is one that continues to be revisited and re-analysed by researchers and scientists alike.
References:
Cherry, K. (2021, April 12). The famous case of Phineas Gage's astonishing brain injury. Verywell Mind. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.verywellmind.com/phineas-gage-2795244
Cherry, K. (2021, February 3). How brain neurons change over time from life experience. Verywell Mind. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-brain-plasticity-2794886#:~:text=Brain%20plasticity%2C%20also%20known%20as,brain%20is%20similar%20to%20plastic.
Guy-Evans, O. (2020, November 30). Phineas Gage. Phineas Gage | Simply Psychology. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/phineas-gage.html
Neuroscience | Psychology Today. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/neuroscience
Ratiu, P., Talos, I.-F., Haker, S., Lieberman, D., & Everett, P. (2004). The tale of phineas gage, digitally remastered. Journal of Neurotrauma, 21(5), 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1089/089771504774129964
Teles, R. V. (2020, December). Phineas Gage's great legacy. Dementia & neuropsychologia. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735047/
Van Horn, J. D., Irimia, A., Torgerson, C. M., Chambers, M. C., Kikinis, R., & Toga, A. W. (2012). Mapping connectivity damage in the case of Phineas Gage. PloS one. Retrieved February 3, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353935/
Comments
Post a Comment