↓ Skip to main content

The glass is not yet half empty: agitation but not Varroa treatment causes cognitive bias in honey bees

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The glass is not yet half empty: agitation but not Varroa treatment causes cognitive bias in honey bees
Published in
Animal Cognition, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-1042-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helge Schlüns, Helena Welling, Julian René Federici, Lars Lewejohann

Abstract

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are prone to judge an ambiguous stimulus negatively if they had been agitated through shaking which simulates a predator attack. Such a cognitive bias has been suggested to reflect an internal emotional state analogous to humans who judge more pessimistically when they do not feel well. In order to test cognitive bias experimentally, an animal is conditioned to respond to two different stimuli, where one is punished while the other is rewarded. Subsequently a third, ambiguous stimulus is presented and it is measured whether the subject responds as if it expects a reward or a punishment. Generally, it is assumed that negative experiences lower future expectations, rendering the animals more pessimistic. Here we tested whether a most likely negatively experienced formic acid treatment against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor also affects future expectations of honey bees. We applied an olfactory learning paradigm (i.e., conditioned proboscis extension response) using two odorants and blends of these odorants as the ambiguous stimuli. Unlike agitating honey bees, exposure to formic acid did not significantly change the response to the ambiguous stimuli in comparison with untreated bees. Overall evidence suggests that the commonest treatment against one of the most harmful bee pests has no detrimental effects on cognitive bias in honey bees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 41%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,488,524
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#971
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,036
of 321,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.