↓ Skip to main content

High-Speed Videography Reveals How Honeybees Can Turn a Spatial Concept Learning Task Into a Simple Discrimination Task by Stereotyped Flight Movements and Sequential Inspection of Pattern Elements

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High-Speed Videography Reveals How Honeybees Can Turn a Spatial Concept Learning Task Into a Simple Discrimination Task by Stereotyped Flight Movements and Sequential Inspection of Pattern Elements
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01347
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Guiraud, Mark Roper, Lars Chittka

Abstract

Honey bees display remarkable visual learning abilities, providing insights regarding visual information processing in a miniature brain. It was discovered that bees can solve a task that is generally viewed as spatial concept learning in primates, specifically the concept of "above" and "below." In these works, two pairs of visual stimuli were shown in the two arms of a Y-maze. Each arm displayed a "referent" shape (e.g., a cross, or a horizontal line) and a second geometric shape that appeared either above or below the referent. Bees learning the "concept of aboveness" had to choose the arm of the Y-maze in which a shape-any shape-occurred above the referent, while those learning the "concept of belowness" had to pick the arm in which there was an arbitrary item beneath the referent. Here, we explore the sequential decision-making process that allows bees to solve this task by analyzing their flight trajectories inside the Y-maze. Over 368 h of high-speed video footage of the bees' choice strategies were analyzed in detail. In our experiments, many bees failed the task, and, with the possible exception of a single forager, bees as a group failed to reach significance in picking the correct arm from the decision chamber of the maze. Of those bees that succeeded in choosing correctly, most required a close-up inspection of the targets. These bees typically employed a close-up scan of only the bottom part of the pattern before taking the decision of landing on a feeder. When rejecting incorrect feeders, they repeatedly scanned the pattern features, but were still, on average, faster at completing the task than the non-leaners. This shows that solving a concept learning task could actually be mediated by turning it into a more manageable discrimination task by some animals, although one individual in this study appeared to have gained the ability (by the end of the training) to solve the task in a manner predicted by concept learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 35%
Neuroscience 8 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,312,125
of 25,637,545 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,729
of 34,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,031
of 342,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#83
of 717 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,637,545 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 342,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 717 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.