Literature DB >> 1257773

Incentive contrast in honey bees.

M E Bitterman.   

Abstract

Bees trained to come to the laboratory for a 20% sucrose solution accept it readily, but bees trained with a 40% sucrose solution and tested with the 20% solution show a pattern of interrupted feeding that may last for several minutes. Bees trained with 20% and tested with 40% sucrose are undisturbed. When the animals are offered two samples of the 20% solution simultaneously, they drink to repletion from whichever they first taste on each visit, but if both a 20% and a 40% drop are offered the 20% solution is rejected after a single experience of the 40% solution. Although these results are analogous in many respects to incentive contrast effects found in mammals, they can be understood in sensory terms and do not require the assumption of learning about reward.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1976        PMID: 1257773     DOI: 10.1126/science.1257773

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Science        ISSN: 0036-8075            Impact factor:   47.728


  6 in total

1.  Effects of nectar concentration and flower depth on flower handling efficiency of bumble bees.

Authors:  Lawrence D Harder
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Label-based expectations affect incentive contrast effects in bumblebees.

Authors:  Claire T Hemingway; Felicity Muth
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.812

3.  No trade-off between learning speed and associative flexibility in bumblebees: a reversal learning test with multiple colonies.

Authors:  Nigel E Raine; Lars Chittka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Behavioural responses to unexpected changes in reward quality.

Authors:  Stefanie Riemer; Hannah Thompson; Oliver H P Burman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Positive and negative incentive contrasts lead to relative value perception in ants.

Authors:  Stephanie Wendt; Kim S Strunk; Jürgen Heinze; Andreas Roider; Tomer J Czaczkes
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  A reappraisal of successive negative contrast in two populations of domestic dogs.

Authors:  Stefanie Riemer; Sarah L H Ellis; Sian Ryan; Hannah Thompson; Oliver H P Burman
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.084

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.