Literature DB >> 24121898

Comparative evaluations of reward dimensions in honey bees: evidence from two-alternative forced choice proboscis-extension conditioning.

Sharoni Shafir, Lia Yehonatan.   

Abstract

A major challenge in understanding choice behaviour is determining how subjects evaluate alternatives that differ along multiple dimensions. Of particular interest is whether similar dimensions are compared to each other or whether each alternative is assigned an absolute value (utility). We assumed that choice proportions would follow Weber's effect, according to which discrimination is proportional to relative difference (difference/mean). We tested honey bees in a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) paradigm of proboscis-extension response (PER) conditioning. Subjects were conditioned over six trials to associate each of two odours with sucrose solution rewards and then tested in a choice trial between the two alternatives. Each group of subjects was tested in one treatment, and there were four treatments in each of six experiments. Rewards differed in delay, duration of feeding, and sucrose concentration. In each treatment, the high-profitability alternative was better than the low-profitability alternative along a single dimension, but between treatments of each experiment values in another dimension monotonically increased. Proboscis-response proportions during the conditioning phase tended to be greater for the high-profitability alternative, and choice proportions for it in the choice phase ranged between 0.72 and 0.89 in the 24 treatments. We show for the first time that harnessed bees are sensitive to reward delay. Preferences did not differ statistically between the different treatments of any of the experiments. The results support comparative evaluation of alternatives and are pertinent to multi-attribute choice, with implications for context-dependent preferences. We also discuss the potential advantages of the 2AFC PER simultaneous choice assay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24121898     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-013-0694-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Cogn        ISSN: 1435-9448            Impact factor:   3.084


  8 in total

1.  Starving honeybees lose self-control.

Authors:  Christopher Mayack; Dhruba Naug
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Omega-3 deficiency impairs honey bee learning.

Authors:  Yael Arien; Arnon Dag; Shlomi Zarchin; Tania Masci; Sharoni Shafir
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Duration of the unconditioned stimulus in appetitive conditioning of honeybees differentially impacts learning, long-term memory strength, and the underlying protein synthesis.

Authors:  Kathrin Marter; M Katharina Grauel; Carmen Lewa; Laura Morgenstern; Christina Buckemüller; Karin Heufelder; Marion Ganz; Dorothea Eisenhardt
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 2.460

4.  Omega-6:3 Ratio More Than Absolute Lipid Level in Diet Affects Associative Learning in Honey Bees.

Authors:  Yael Arien; Arnon Dag; Sharoni Shafir
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-06-19

5.  Natural Variation in Flower Color and Scent in Populations of Eruca sativa (Brassicaceae) Affects Pollination Behavior of Honey Bees.

Authors:  Oz Barazani; Tal Erez; Ariel Ogran; Nir Hanin; Michal Barzilai; Arnon Dag; Sharoni Shafir
Journal:  J Insect Sci       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 1.857

6.  Responsiveness to Sugar Solutions in the Moth Agrotis ipsilon: Parameters Affecting Proboscis Extension.

Authors:  Camille Hostachy; Philippe Couzi; Melissa Hanafi-Portier; Guillaume Portemer; Alexandre Halleguen; Meena Murmu; Nina Deisig; Matthieu Dacher
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 4.566

7.  Individual honey bee (Apis cerana) foragers adjust their fuel load to match variability in forage reward.

Authors:  Ken Tan; Tanya Latty; Shihao Dong; Xiwen Liu; Chao Wang; Benjamin P Oldroyd
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Two-dimensional reward evaluation in mice.

Authors:  Vladislav Nachev; Marion Rivalan; York Winter
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.084

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.