The “Jennifer Aniston neuron” has kicked around for years. It’s not new. It’s relevant, though, because it helps explain why anyone cares about stuff like a “Friends” reunion in the first place. Specifically, it provides something of a scientific explanation for nostalgia — and nostalgia is everywhere. People, maybe now more than ever, really, really like feeling nostalgic.
MORE: The best sports photos of 2015 | Historic baseball photos
A decade ago, scientists at Caltech used electrodes to record firing patterns of neurons in the medial temporal lobe, the brain’s memory center. They found that when they showed participants photos of famous people, the same specific individual neuron lit up each time. There was one for Bill Clinton, another for Michael Jordan and another for, naturally, Jennifer Aniston. It was her name that stuck.
From a New York Post story published on Sunday afternoon:
Until the Jennifer Aniston neuron, the idea of a neuron responding to a specific concept was laughable. Neurons are merely microchips in the vast computational machine that is the brain. They process tiny bits of information, like photons of light, not something as abstract as the identity of a celebrity. But the Jennifer Aniston neuron challenged that view. As it turns out, the brain is designed not only to acquire information through our five senses and create a picture of the world, but also to find patterns, make judgements, and contemplate decisions. The brain is designed to search for meaning.
Specifically, the brain creates hard-wired memories with a defined home. There’s organization and, yes, meaning that transcends storage of raw sensory data. That’s why, for example, a New York Rangers fan looks at a photo of Mark Messier and sees more than a bald guy who played hockey.
Maybe the fan remembers Rangers’ run in 1994, and the people they were with when Messier lifted the Cup, and how it felt when Stephane Matteau scored in the Eastern Conference finals. It triggers something — the same thing, actually. The Jennifer Aniston neuron.
“I think that’s the excitement to these results,” Johns Hopkins neurologist Charles Conner said in 2005 (via New Scientist). “You are looking at the far end of the transformation from metric, visual shapes to conceptual memory-related information. It is that transformation that underlies our ability to understand the world. It’s not enough to see something familiar and match it.
“It’s the fact that you plug visual information into the rich tapestry of memory that brings it to life.”
