We apologise to authors and readers for any inconvenience this error may have caused.

The current study provides evidence of learned helplessness in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.). Bees received either avoidable or unavoidable shock during a discriminative compartment restriction task in an automated shuttle box. Decreased avoidance behavior was observed when bees received unavoidable shock prior to avoidable shock tests, conserving a non-preference response pattern. Prior training with avoidable shock created a preference that was conserved when shock was later unavoidable. Length of the training time impacted how pronounced the conserved behavior was in subsequent tests. Unlike existing learned helplessness studies in other animals, no decrease in general activity was observed. These findings identify honey bees as a unique model organism to explore the process of learned helplessness.v

No abstract

The honey bees' lack of learned avoidance to EtOH mirrors that seen in human alcoholism. These findings demonstrate the usefulness of honey bees as an insect model for EtOH consumption.

Interval timing is a key element of foraging theory, models of predator avoidance, and competitive interactions. Although interval timing is well documented in vertebrate species, it is virtually unstudied in invertebrates. In the present experiment, we used free-flying honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) as a model for timing behaviors. Subjects were trained to enter a hole in an automated artificial flower to receive a nectar reinforcer (i.e. reward). Responses were continuously reinforced prior to exposure to either a fixed interval (FI) 15-sec, FI 30-sec, FI 60-sec, or FI 120-sec reinforcement schedule. We measured response rate and post-reinforcement pause within each fixed interval trial between reinforcers. Honey bees responded at higher frequencies earlier in the fixed interval suggesting subject responding did not come under traditional forms of temporal control. Response rates were lower during FI conditions compared to performance on continuous reinforcement schedules, and responding was more resistant to extinction when previously reinforced on FI schedules. However, no “scalloped” or “break-and-run” patterns of group or individual responses reinforced on FI schedules were observed; no traditional evidence of temporal control was found. Finally, longer FI schedules eventually caused all subjects to cease returning to the operant chamber indicating subjects did not tolerate the longer FI schedules.

The use of the Propeller Experiment Controller to create inexpensive teaching laboratories in behavior is described. Pre-written programs are provided for unique classroom experiments in habituation and classical conditioning. Several programs are also provided to recreate the traditional student operant conditioning laboratory. Video tutorials are also available to guide the user to effectively use the Propeller Experiment Controller for behavioral experiments.

No abstract

Behavioral research is often enhanced by automated techniques, where experimental parameters and detection of behavior are controlled by electromechanical systems. Automated research promotes refinements in measurement, greater experimental control, longer durations of data collection, reduction of observer fatigue, and may permit new types of research to be conducted. In comparative psychology, use of automated techniques are often restricted to popular model organisms of fields such as behavior analysis and behavioral neuroscience. One factor contributing to this species-restriction may be the availability of automated research equipment, as most commercial research equipment is designed for rodents, and many researchers lack the skills required to create their own automated equipment. However, there are alternatives to commercial equipment, as some behavioral scientists have made available their own species-flexible, low-cost research equipment. In this paper, we provide three reviews. We first review recent trends in automated comparative psychology research, and then relate this to a second review on currently available automated research equipment. We also review affordable alternatives to commercial equipment that have been designed by behavioral scientists. Finally, we discuss useful technological skills that may allow comparative psychologists to take automation into their own hands and design equipment specific to their species and research topic.