Feature-positive and feature-negative learning in honey bees

Abramson, Charles I.; Çakmak, İbrahim; Duell, Meghan; Bates-Albers, Leah; Zuniga, Enoc; Pendegraft, Loma; Barnett, Amanda E.; Cowo, Carmen L.; Warren, Jason G.; Albritton-Ford, Aaron C.; Barthell, John F.; Hranıtz, John M.; Wells, Harrington

doi:10.1242/jeb.069088

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between parts of an experiment, a new set of flowers was used (e.g. Wells and Wells 1986;Ç akmak et al 2009;Abramson et al 2013). These methods do not guarantee that flower odors have been eliminated completely from each artificial flower after being washed, because honey bees can perceive odors at concentrations\1 ppb.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neonicotinoids, systemic neuro-active pesticides similar to nicotine, are widely used in agriculture and are being investigated for a role in honey bee colony losses. We examined one neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid, for its effects on the foraging behavior of free-flying honey bees (Apis mellifera anatoliaca) visiting artificial blue and white flowers. Imidacloprid doses, ranging from 1/5 to 1/50 of the reported LD50, were fed to bees orally. The study consisted of three experimental parts performed sequentially without interruption. In Part 1, both flower colors contained a 4 μL 1 M sucrose solution reward. Part 2 offered bees 4 μL of 1.5 M sucrose solution in blue flowers and a 4 μL 0.5 M sucrose solution reward in white flowers. In Part 3 we reversed the sugar solution rewards, while keeping the flower color consistent. Each experiment began 30 min after administration of the pesticide. We recorded the percentage of experimental bees that returned to forage after treatment. We also recorded the visitation rate, number of flowers visited, and floral reward choices of the bees that foraged after treatment. The forager return rate declined linearly with increasing imidacloprid dose. The number of foraging trips by returning bees was also affected adversely. However, flower fidelity was not affected by imidacloprid dose. Foragers visited both blue and white flowers extensively in Part 1, and showed greater fidelity for the flower color offering the higher sugar solution reward in Parts 2 and 3. Although larger samples sizes are needed, our study suggests that imidacloprid may not affect the ability to select the higher nectar reward when rewards were reversed. We observed acute, mild effects on foraging by honey bees, so mild that storage of imidacloprid tainted-honey is very plausible and likely to be found in honey bee colonies.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the single cue elicits anticipatory behavior, but animals withhold their responses when the same cue is presented in feature-negative trials. Studies have shown that the ability to conditionally discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded trials can occur in a wide range of species, from insects to humans (Pace et al, 1980;Nallan et al, 1981;Pace and McCoy, 1981;Abramson et al, 2013), and under a variety of stimulus conditions (Holland, 1997). In the mammalian brain there is evidence that these functions are mediated by specific circuits, including the retrosplenial cortex (Robinson et al, 2011), striatum, and orbitofrontal cortex (Meyer and Bucci, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective Modulation of Orbitofrontal Network Activity during Negative Occasion Setting

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrete cues can gain powerful control over behavior to help an animal anticipate and cope with upcoming events. This is important in conditions where understanding the relationship between complex stimuli provides a means to resolving situational ambiguity. However, it is unclear how cortical circuits generate and maintain these signals that conditionally regulate behavior. To address this, we established a Pavlovian serial feature-negative conditioning paradigm, where male mice are trained on a trial in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) is presented alone and followed by reward, or a feature-negative trial in which the CS is preceded by a feature cue indicating there is no reward. Mice learn to respond with anticipatory licking to a solitary CS, but significantly suppress their responding to the same cue during feature-negative trials. We show that the feature cue forms a selective association with its paired CS, because the ability of the feature to transfer its suppressive properties to a separately rewarded cue is limited. Next, to examine the underlying neural dynamics, we conduct recordings in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). We find that the feature cue significantly and selectively inhibits CS-evoked activity. Finally, we find that the feature triggers a distinct OFC network state during the delay period between the feature and CS, establishing a potential link between the feature and future events. Together, our findings suggest that OFC dynamics are modulated by the feature cue and its associated conditioned stimulus in a manner consistent with an occasion setting model. The ability of patterned cues to form an inhibitory relationship with ambiguously rewarded outcomes has been appreciated since early studies on learning and memory. However, it was often assumed that these cues, despite their hierarchical nature, still made direct associative links with neural rewarding events. This model was significantly challenged, largely by the work of Holland and colleagues, who demonstrated that under certain conditions cues can inherit occasion setting properties whereby they modulate the ability of a paired cue to elicit its conditioned response. Here we provide some of the first evidence that the activity of a cortical circuit is selectively modulated by such cues, thereby providing insight into the mechanisms of higher order learning.

show abstract

“…Previous research indicates that while honey bees are able to learn through discrimination, they have difficulty with other types of problem solving (Abramson et al, 2008;Abramson et al, 2010;Abramson et al, 2013;Craig & Abramson, 2015). Abramson and colleagues (2008) found that bees were able to discriminate between two odors, which suggests that honey bees might be able to discriminate between positive and negative stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bee success rates for the feature-negative trials were approximately 64% and approximately 60% for the feature-positive trials, which is a little better than chance (i.e., 50%). These findings suggest that the foragers did not retain information in detail from previous trials and that the bees had to reassess the problem during each trial (Abramson et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Do Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Form Cognitive Representations of Unconditioned Stimuli?

Stauch¹,

Wells²,

Abramson³

2020

IJCP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research looking at expectancy in animals has used various experimental designs focusing on appetitive and avoidance behaviors. In this study, honey bees (Apis mellifera) were tested ina series of three proboscis extension response (PER) experiments to determine to what degree honey bees’ form a cognitive-representation of an unconditioned stimulus (US). Tthe first experiment, bees were presented with either a 2 sec. sucrose US or 2 sec. honey US appetitive reward and the proboscis-extension duration was measured under each scenario. The PER duration was longer for the honey US even though each US was presented for just 2 sec. Honey bees in the second experiment were tested during extinction trials on a conditioned stimulus (CS) of cinnamon or lavender that was paired with either the sucrose US or honey US in the acquisition trials. The proportion of bees showing the PER response to the CS was recorded for each extinction trial for each US scenario, as was the duration of the proboscis extension for each bee. Neither measure differed between the honey US and sucrose US scenarios, In experiment three, bees were presented with a cinnamon or lavender CS paired with either honey US or sucrose US in a set of acquisition trials, but here the US was not given until after the proboscis was retracted. The PER duration after the CS, and again subsequent after the US, were recorded. While the PER duration after the US was longer for honey, the PER duration after the CS did not differ between honey US and sucrose US.

show abstract

Feature-positive and feature-negative learning in honey bees

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging

Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging

Selective Modulation of Orbitofrontal Network Activity during Negative Occasion Setting

Do Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Form Cognitive Representations of Unconditioned Stimuli?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About