↓ Skip to main content

Bimodal Patterning Discrimination in Harnessed Honey Bees

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Bimodal Patterning Discrimination in Harnessed Honey Bees
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01529
Pubmed ID
Authors

Breno E. Mansur, Jean R. V. Rodrigues, Theo Mota

Abstract

In natural environments, stimuli and events learned by animals usually occur in a combination of more than one sensory modality. An important problem in experimental psychology has been thus to understand how organisms learn about multimodal compounds and how they discriminate this compounds from their unimodal constituents. Here we tested the ability of honey bees to learn bimodal patterning discriminations in which a visual-olfactory compound (AB) should be differentiated from its visual (A) and olfactory (B) elements. We found that harnessed bees trained in classical conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) are able to solve bimodal positive and negative patterning (NP) tasks. In positive patterning (PP), bees learned to respond significantly more to a bimodal reinforced compound (AB+) than to non-reinforced presentations of single visual (A-) or olfactory (B-) elements. In NP, bees learned to suppress their responses to a non-reinforced compound (AB-) and increase their responses to reinforced presentations of visual (A+) or olfactory (B+) elements alone. We compared the effect of two different inter-trial intervals (ITI) in our conditioning approaches. Whereas an ITI of 8 min allowed solving both PP and NP, only PP could be solved with a shorter ITI of 3 min. In all successful cases of bimodal PP and NP, bees were still able to discriminate between reinforced and non-reinforced stimuli in memory tests performed one hour after conditioning. The analysis of individual performances in PP and NP revealed that different learning strategies emerged in distinct individuals. Both in PP and NP, high levels of generalization were found between elements and compound at the individual level, suggesting a similar difficulty for bees to solve these bimodal patterning tasks. We discuss our results in light of elemental and configural learning theories that may support the strategies adopted by honey bees to solve bimodal PP or NP discriminations.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 16%
Psychology 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,534,599
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,867
of 31,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,963
of 335,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#361
of 729 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 335,137 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 729 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.