Learning theories distinguish elemental from configural learning based on their different complexity. Although the former relies on simple and unambiguous links between the learned events, the latter deals with ambiguous discriminations in which conjunctive representations of events are learned as being different from their elements. In mammals, configural learning is mediated by brain areas that are either dispensable or partially involved in elemental learning. We studied whether the insect brain follows the same principles and addressed this question in the honey bee, the only insect in which configural learning has been demonstrated. We used a combination of conditioning protocols, disruption of neural activity, and optophysiological recording of olfactory circuits in the bee brain to determine whether mushroom bodies (MBs), brain structures that are essential for memory storage and retrieval, are equally necessary for configural and elemental olfactory learning. We show that bees with anesthetized MBs distinguish odors and learn elemental olfactory discriminations but not configural ones, such as positive and negative patterning. Inhibition of GABAergic signaling in the MB calyces, but not in the lobes, impairs patterning discrimination, thus suggesting a requirement of GABAergic feedback neurons from the lobes to the calyces for nonelemental learning. These results uncover a previously unidentified role for MBs besides memory storage and retrieval: namely, their implication in the acquisition of ambiguous discrimination problems. Thus, in insects as in mammals, specific brain regions are recruited when the ambiguity of learning tasks increases, a fact that reveals similarities in the neural processes underlying the elucidation of ambiguous tasks across species.learning | configural learning | mushroom bodies | honey bee | Apis mellifera

BackgroundThe success of social insects can be in part attributed to their division of labor, which has been explained by a response threshold model. This model posits that individuals differ in their response thresholds to task-associated stimuli, so that individuals with lower thresholds specialize in this task. This model is at odds with findings on honeybee behavior as nectar and pollen foragers exhibit different responsiveness to sucrose, with nectar foragers having higher response thresholds to sucrose concentration. Moreover, it has been suggested that sucrose responsiveness correlates with responsiveness to most if not all other stimuli. If this is the case, explaining task specialization and the origins of division of labor on the basis of differences in response thresholds is difficult.MethodologyTo compare responsiveness to stimuli presenting clear-cut differences in hedonic value and behavioral contexts, we measured appetitive and aversive responsiveness in the same bees in the laboratory. We quantified proboscis extension responses to increasing sucrose concentrations and sting extension responses to electric shocks of increasing voltage. We analyzed the relationship between aversive responsiveness and aversive olfactory conditioning of the sting extension reflex, and determined how this relationship relates to division of labor.Principal FindingsSucrose and shock responsiveness measured in the same bees did not correlate, thus suggesting that they correspond to independent behavioral syndromes, a foraging and a defensive one. Bees which were more responsive to shock learned and memorized better aversive associations. Finally, guards were less responsive than nectar foragers to electric shocks, exhibiting higher tolerance to low voltage shocks. Consequently, foragers, which are more sensitive, were the ones learning and memorizing better in aversive conditioning.ConclusionsOur results constitute the first integrative study on how aversive responsiveness affects learning, memory and social organization in honeybees. We suggest that parallel behavioral modules (e.g. appetitive, aversive) coexist within each individual bee and determine its tendency to adopt a given task. This conclusion, which is at odds with a simple threshold model, should open new opportunities for exploring the division of labor in social insects.