Caste-specific differences in risk sensitivity in honeybees, Apis mellifera

Self Cite

Training and testing were done according to the timeline in Fig.2. Each fly was given six training trials. In 'paired' trials, flies were rewarded with 5s access to sucrose (1moll -1 solution) 5s after Accepted 6 June 2011 SUMMARY The role of sound in Drosophila melanogaster courtship, along with its perception via the antennae, is well established, as is the ability of this fly to learn in classical conditioning protocols. Here, we demonstrate that a neutral acoustic stimulus paired with a sucrose reward can be used to condition the proboscis-extension reflex, part of normal feeding behavior. This appetitive conditioning produces results comparable to those obtained with chemical stimuli in aversive conditioning protocols. We applied a logistic model with general estimating equations to predict the dynamics of learning, which successfully predicts the outcome of training and provides a quantitative estimate of the rate of learning. Use of acoustic stimuli with appetitive conditioning provides both an alternative to models most commonly used in studies of learning and memory in Drosophila and a means of testing hearing in both sexes, independently of courtship responsiveness. Supplementary material available online at

Section: Analysis Of Learningmentioning

confidence: 94%

Classical conditioning through auditory stimuli in Drosophila: methods and models

Menda

Bar

Arthur

et al. 2011

Self Cite

“…For example, honey bee (Apis mellifera) workers were more risk averse than drones (Shafir et al, 2005), bumblebees (Bombus sandersonii) were more risk averse than wasps (Vespula vulgaris) (Real, 1981), and there are cultural differences in humans in levels of risk sensitivity (Weber and Hsee, 2000;Weber et al, 2004). In the present work, we took a quantitative approach, testing degree of risk sensitivity of subjects on a positive energy budget to variability in We investigated risk sensitivity with harnessed honey bees in a proboscis-extension conditioning paradigm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The functional perspective is concerned with the choice behavior that is predicted to have evolved through natural selection to maximize the animal's fitness, the mechanistic with the process by which choice develops, and the descriptive with what the animal actually chooses. Functional models are needed to explain the effect of state on shifting between risk aversion and proneness, whereas mechanistic models can explain such shifts between positive and negative outcomes (Marsh and Kacelnik, 2002) and differences between experimental conditions in degree of risk sensitivity (Kacelnik and Abreu, 1998;Shapiro, 2000;Shapiro et al, 2001;Shafir et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters of variable reward distributions that affect risk sensitivity of honey bees

Drezner-Levy

Shafir

2007

Self Cite

SUMMARY We investigated risk sensitivity with harnessed honey bees in a proboscis-extension conditioning paradigm. We conditioned each subject to turn its head and extend its proboscis towards one of two presented odors; one odor was associated with a constant reward and the other with a variable reward that was either low or high, with probabilities P and (1-P),respectively. Reward values and probabilities were set so that the expected value of the variable alternative was equal to that of the constant one. We performed six experimental conditions in which variability was in reward volume and three conditions in which variability was in reward concentration. The experiments were designed to systematically test the effect of various parameters that describe the reward distributions on levels of risk sensitivity. Risk aversion was greatest when variability was in reward volume,and the variable distribution included zero rewards and had a high coefficient of variation (CV=s.d./mean). The variance itself did not affect risk sensitivity. Subjects were risk indifferent when the variable distribution did not include zero rewards, however these distributions were positively skewed. The independent effects of zero rewards and distribution skew remain to be tested. Subjects were risk indifferent in conditions where variability was in reward concentration, but concentration range was limited and these distributions did not include zero rewards and were skewed. We conclude that risk aversion to variability in reward amount is a robust phenomenon for some reward distributions. A systematic evaluation of the effect of various reward distribution parameters on choice behavior should complement functional and mechanistic approaches.

“…However, one study found that female honeybees learn better than males in tasks specifically related to foraging behavior (Shafir et al, 2005). Given that female and male mosquitoes have very different feeding behaviors and risks to balance in foraging and reproduction, it is likely that sex-specific learning assays could be found for them as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative learning in the dengue vector mosquito,Aedes aegypti: avoidance of a previously attractive odor or surface color that is paired with an aversive stimulus

Menda

Uhr

Wyttenbach

et al. 2012

Self Cite

SUMMARYAssociative learning has been shown in a variety of insects, including the mosquitoes Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles gambiae. This study demonstrates associative learning for the first time in Aedes aegypti, an important vector of dengue, yellow fever and chikungunya viruses. This species prefers to rest on dark surfaces and is attracted to the odor of 1-octen-3-ol. After training in which a dark surface alone or a dark surface with odor was paired with electric shock, mosquitoes avoided the previously attractive area. The association was stronger when odor was included in training, was retained for at least 60min but not for 24h, and was equal for males and females. These results demonstrate the utility of a bulk-training paradigm for mosquitoes similar to that used with Drosophila melanogaster.