Phineas Gage: His Accident and Impact on Psychology

Key Takeaways

  • Survived a severe brain injury: In 1848, Phineas Gage lived through a shocking accident—an iron rod shot through his skull and brain.
  • Frontal lobe damage led to personality changes: The rod destroyed parts of his frontal lobe, and early reports described major shifts in his behavior and temperament.
  • A landmark neuroscience case: Gage’s story became crucial for linking brain regions to personality, decision-making, and social functioning.
  • Modern research updates the narrative: Brain imaging in the late 20th century suggests the damage was less extensive than first thought, and Gage may have recovered better than assumed.
  • Historical accuracy is disputed: Dr. Harlow’s original account was later embellished. Researchers now warn against overinterpreting Gage’s personality changes or idealizing his pre-injury self.
phineas gage1
Phineas Gage post-accident, holding the rod that penetrated his skull.

What Happened To Phineas Gage?

On September 13, 1848, Phineas Gage, a 25-year-old railroad construction foreman, was preparing explosives in Cavendish, Vermont.

As he tamped down blasting powder with a 43-inch, 13-pound iron rod, the charge exploded unexpectedly.

The tamping iron shot through his left cheek, behind his eye, and out through the top of his skull, destroying much of his left frontal lobe.

Amazingly, Gage survived. He remained conscious, was able to speak, and even walked unaided to a cart that took him to the local doctor.

Dr. Edward H. Williams noted that Gage’s brain was visibly pulsing through the wound. Gage, seemingly unfazed, greeted him by saying, “Here’s business enough for you.”

Fact Check: Did Phineas Gage Vomit Up His Brain?

One of the more gruesome claims about Gage’s injury is that he vomited out part of his brain. This detail comes from Dr. Edward Williams, who reported that during episodes of vomiting, “additional small amounts of Gage’s brain matter [were] expelled onto the floor through the frontal exit wound.”

While this account sounds shocking, it’s not entirely implausible. The explosion had forced a significant opening in his skull, and damaged tissue may have become dislodged.

However, experts caution that the extent of expelled brain matter is unknown, and such claims should be viewed with skepticism given the limited medical knowledge and observational tools of the time.

In short: yes, historical reports mention it—but modern interpretations suggest caution in taking it too literally.

Recovery and the First Clues of Change

Dr. John Martyn Harlow later took over Gage’s care. Though Gage suffered infections and a semi-comatose spell, he steadily recovered.

By October, he was walking and talking again. Physically, he appeared to regain his strength. Mentally and emotionally, however, something had changed.

Before the accident, Gage was described as energetic, responsible, and a favorite among his crew. Afterward, reports painted him as impulsive, rude, and unreliable.

Harlow wrote that “the equilibrium or balance… between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed.” He added:

“He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom)… at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating… devising many plans… which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned… A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man”.

His friends famously said he was “no longer Gage.”

How Much Did Gage Really Change?

Though Harlow’s accounts are the primary source of information, later writers often embellished Gage’s personality both before and after the accident.

Some described him as unusually polite and mild-mannered pre-accident, and almost monstrously unstable afterward.

Accounts tend to polish Gage’s pre-accident image as an upstanding citizen while presenting an almost cartoonishly perturbed version post-injury – neither in keeping with Harlow’s more nuanced clinical descriptions.

This likely reflects enthusiasm for fitting Gage’s case to localization theories. Macmillan (2000) argues that we must cautiously analyze such embellished personality descriptions when assessing Phineas Gage’s legacy.

In truth, Harlow also noted that Gage held a job as a stagecoach driver in Chile years after the injury—hardly something a truly incapacitated person could do. 

Severity of Gage’s Brain Damage

In the 1990s and 2000s, researchers used neuroimaging and CT scans to reconstruct Gage’s skull and estimate the trajectory of the rod.

Damasio et al. (1994) suggested that the damage extended to both the left and right prefrontal cortices, which are involved in emotional regulation and rational decision-making.

Phineas Gage
Figure 1. Replica model of Gage’s skull using neuroimaging techniques

Ratiu et al. (2004) generated three-dimensional reconstructions of the skull using computed tomography scans (CAT) and found that the extent of the brain injury was limited to the left frontal lobe only and did not extend to the right lobe (see Fig. 2).

Phineas Gage brain image from Ratiu et al., (2004)
Figure 2. CAT scan reconstruction of Gage’s skull

Van Horn et al. (2012) supported Ratiu et al. (2004) in that they always concluded that the rod only damaged the left frontal lobe and not the right.

Van Horn’s team also found that Gage likely lost 11% of his white matter and 4% of his grey matter—enough to affect thinking and behavior, but not to prevent functional recovery.

Phineas Gage MRI
Figure 3. CAT scan and MRI reconstruction of Gage’s skull

Did Gage Have Alzheimer’s?

Some researchers speculated that Gage’s behavioral changes might resemble early-onset Alzheimer’s, since both involve white matter degradation.

However, Harlow only reported on Gage shortly after the accident, and there’s no concrete evidence he developed the disease. This remains purely speculative.

Conclusion

All studies investigating the brain damage suffered by Gage is essentially all speculation as we cannot know for certain the extent of the accident’s effects.

We know that some brain tissue got destroyed, but any infections Gage may have suffered after the accident may have further destroyed more brain tissue.

We also cannot determine the exact location where the iron rod entered Gage’s skull to the millimeter. As brain structure varies from person to person, researchers cannot ever know for certain what areas of Gage’s brain were destroyed.

What Happened to Phineas Gage After the Brain Damage?

Gage eventually moved to Chile and worked as a stagecoach driver. In 1860, he returned to the U.S. and began experiencing epileptic seizures.

He died in San Francisco in 1861 at the age of 38 from complications related to epilepsy.

In 1867, Harlow arranged to exhume Gage’s body and recovered his skull and tamping iron, which are now displayed at Harvard Medical School

Why Is Phineas Gage Important to Psychology?

Gage’s story helped launch the field of neuropsychology. It provided early, powerful evidence that the frontal lobes are essential for regulating behavior, personality, and social functioning.

It also introduced the idea of localization of brain function—that specific parts of the brain serve specific roles.

Yet Gage’s case is not just a tale of loss. His return to functional life suggests the brain’s remarkable capacity for neuroplasticity.

As Macmillan (2002) argues, Gage may have relearned lost abilities over time. Despite the trauma, he adapted—an early and striking example of resilience after brain injury.

References

Blakeslee, S. (1994, July 6). A miraculous recovery that went wrong. New York Times.

Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., & Damasio, A. R. (1994). The return of Phineas Gage: clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. Science, 264 (5162), 1102-1105.Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39, 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868). Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head. Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2 (3), 327-347.

Kao, Y. H., Chou, M. C., Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. H. (2019). White matter changes in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and associated factors. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8 (2), 167.

Lahey, B. B. (1992). Psychology: An introduction. Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Macmillan, M. (2000). Restoring Phineas Gage: A 150th retrospective. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 9(1), 46-66.

Macmillan, M. (2002). An odd kind of fame: Stories of Phineas Gage. MIT Press.

Myers, D. G. (1998). Psychology (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.

Nasrabady, S. E., Rizvi, B., Goldman, J. E., & Brickman, A. M. (2018). White matter changes in Alzheimer’s disease: a focus on myelin and oligodendrocytes. Acta neuropathologica communications, 6(1), 1-10.

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.

Suinn, R. M. (1970). Fundamentals of behavior pathology. Wiley.

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, 7(5), e37454.

Further Reading

If a person suffers from a traumatic brain injury in the prefrontal cortex, similar to that of Phineas Gage, what changes might occur?

A traumatic brain injury to the prefrontal cortex could result in significant changes in personality, emotional regulation, and executive function. This region is vital for impulse control, decision-making, and moderating social behavior.

A person may exhibit increased impulsivity, poor judgment, and reduced ability to plan or organize. Emotional volatility and difficulty in interpersonal relationships may also occur.

Just like the case of Phineas Gage, who became more impulsive and less dependable, the injury could dramatically alter one’s character and abilities.

Saul McLeod, PhD

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.


Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

h4 { font-weight: bold; } h1 { font-size: 40px; } h5 { font-weight: bold; } .mv-ad-box * { display: none !important; } .content-unmask .mv-ad-box { display:none; } #printfriendly { line-height: 1.7; } #printfriendly #pf-title { font-size: 40px; }