Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees

Greggers, Uwe; Menzel, Randolf

doi:10.1007/bf00172219

Cited by 173 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We already have some evidence that tactile learning under free-flying conditions is comparable to that under laboratory conditions and that nectar bees with higher gustatory responsiveness collect more diluted nectar than those with lower responsiveness (Pankiw and Page 2000). These findings and results from other laboratories on the role of sensory stimuli in learning and foraging (Greggers and Menzel 1993;Giurfa 1996;Ben Shahar et al 2000;Chandra et al 2000;Masterman et al 2000;Sandoz et al 2001;Barron et al 2002) provide us with a solid experimental basis for a detailed analysis of the multiple factors contributing to the processing of sensory stimuli, learning, and foraging behavior in honeybees.…”

Section: Conclusion For Foraging Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 58%

Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees

Scheiner¹,

Kuritz-Kaiser²,

Menzel³

et al. 2005

Learn. Mem.

Self Cite

100

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In tactile learning, sucrose is the unconditioned stimulus and reward, which is usually applied to the antenna to elicit proboscis extension and which the bee can drink when it is subsequently applied to the extended proboscis. The conditioned stimulus is a tactile object that the bee can scan with its antennae. In this paper we describe the quantitative relationships between gustatory antennal stimulation, gustatory proboscis stimulation, and tactile learning and memory. Bees are 10-fold more responsive to sucrose solutions when they are applied to the antenna compared to proboscis stimulation. During tactile conditioning, the sucrose solution applied to the proboscis determines the level of acquisition, whereas antennal input is of minor importance. Bees differing in their gustatory responsiveness measured at the antenna differ strongly in their tactile acquisition and memory. We demonstrate how these differences in tactile acquisition and memory can be greatly reduced by calculating equal subjective rewards, based on individual gustatory responsiveness.Learning in animals depends on many factors including the salience of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the strength of the unconditioned stimulus (US) (Rescorla and Wagner 1972). Even under controlled laboratory conditions, individuals show variance in the rate of acquisition, the asymptote of acquisition, and in retention (Scheiner et al. 2001a(Scheiner et al. ,b, 2003Matzel et al. 2003;Hedden and Gabrieli 2004;Dellu-Hagedorn 2005). Multiple intrinsic factors can contribute to these behavioral differences. Some of these factors may be related to individual differences in evaluating CS and US (Scheiner et al. 1999;Chester et al. 2003). These differences could reflect genetic heterogeneity at the individual level.Studies in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) can be very useful to identify important factors leading to inter-individual learning differences and their potential sources of control. Associative learning plays an important part in honeybee behavior. Bees learn very fast the location of a foraging site and the numerous characteristics of reward-yielding plants (for review, see Menzel

show abstract

Section: Conclusion For Foraging Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 58%

Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees

Scheiner¹,

Kuritz-Kaiser²,

Menzel³

et al. 2005

Learn. Mem.

Self Cite

100

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, even though our experiments cannot be described by error reduction learning rules, rules that compute a predictive error for future reinforcement may be required for the explanation of other important features of olfactory PER conditioning. Several investigators have proposed that both the learning of floral parameters as signals for the profitability of food sources (Couvillon and Bitterman 1985, 1986Greggers and Menzel 1993;Montague et al 1995) and olfactory PER conditioning (Hammer 1997;Smith 1997) are consistent with the basic assumptions of error reduction learning rules. For example, in PER conditioning, unpaired presentation of an olfactory CS and the sucrose US with ISis of 5 min retards the acquisition of that CS where the strength of the retardation effect depends on the number of unpaired trials (Menzel 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Backward inhibitory learning in honeybees: a behavioral analysis of reinforcement processing.

Hellstern

Malaka²,

Hammer³

1998

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One class of theoretical accounts of associative learning suggests that reinforcers are processed according to learning rules that minimize the predictive error between the expected strength of future reinforcement and its actual strength. The omission of reinforcement in a situation where it is expected leads to inhibitory learning of stimuli indicative for such a violation of the prediction. There are, however, results indicating that inhibitory learning can also be induced by other mechanisms. Here, we present data from olfactory reward conditioning in honeybees that show that (1) one-and multiple-trial backward conditioning results in conditioned inhibition (CI); (2) the inhibition is maximal for a 15-sec interval between US and CS; (3) there is a nonmonotonic dependency on the degree of CI from the US-CS interval during backward pairing; and (4) the prior association of context stimuli with reinforcement is not necessary for the development of CI. These results cannot be explained by models that only minimize a prediction error. Rather, they are consistent with models of associative learning that, in addition, assume that learning depends on the 3Corresponding author. 4present address: European Media Lab,

show abstract

“…To interpret it from another perspective, one could say that longer intervals release working memory from the dominant memory of the last visit and allow for contributions from an earlier memory that has meanwhile been consolidated. Greggers and Menzel (1993) found for bees foraging in a patch of four feeders that delivered different flow rates of sucrose solution that they store the reward properties of these feeders in working memory. Similar results were found for eight feeders, indicating that the reward properties of eight feeders can also be stored in feeder-specific memories.…”

Section: Working Memory: Capacity and Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%