Conspecific and interspecific stimuli reduce initial performance in an aversive learning task in honey bees (Apis mellifera)

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate whether honey bees (Apis mellifera) are able to use social discriminative stimuli in a spatial aversive conditioning paradigm. We tested bees' ability to avoid shock in a shuttle box apparatus across multiple groups when either shock, or the absence of shock, was associated with a live hive mate, a dead hive mate, a live Polistes exclamans wasp or a dead wasp. Additionally, we used several control groups common to bee shuttle box research where shock was only associated with spatial cues, or where shock was associated with a blue or yellow color. While bees were able to learn the aversive task in a simple spatial discrimination, the presence of any other stimuli (color, another bee, or a wasp) reduced initial performance. While the color biases we discovered are in line with other experiments, the finding that the presence of another animal reduces performance is novel. Generally, it appears that the use of bees or wasps as stimuli initially causes an increase in overall activity that interferes with early performance in the spatial task. During the course of the experiment, the bees habituate to the insect stimuli (bee or wasp), and begin learning the aversive task. Additionally, we found that experimental subject bees did not discriminate between bees or wasps used as stimulus animals, nor did they discriminate between live or dead stimulus animals. This may occur, in part, due to the specialized nature of the worker honey bee. Results are discussed with implications for continual research on honey bees as models of aversive learning, as well as research on insect social learning in general.

Failure to Find Ethanol-Induced Conditioned Taste Aversion in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

BACKGROUND

Conditioned taste aversion (CTA) learning is a highly specialized form of conditioning found across taxa that leads to avoidance of an initially neutral stimulus, such as taste or odor, that is associated with, but is not the cause of, a detrimental health condition. This study examines if honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) develop ethanol (EtOH)-induced CTA.

METHODS

Restrained bees were first administered a sucrose solution that was cinnamon scented, lavender scented, or unscented, and contained either 0, 2.5, 5, 10, or 20% EtOH. Then, 30 minutes later, we used a proboscis extension response (PER) conditioning procedure where the bees were taught to associate either cinnamon odor, lavender odor, or an air-puff with repeated sucrose feedings. For some bees, the odor of the previously consumed EtOH solution was the same as the odor associated with sucrose in the conditioning procedure. If bees are able to learn EtOH-induced CTA, they should show an immediate low level of response to odors previously associated with EtOH.

RESULTS

We found that bees did not develop CTA despite the substantial inhibitory and aversive effects EtOH has on behavior. Instead, bees receiving a conditioning odor that was previously associated with EtOH showed an immediate high level of response. While this demonstrates bees are capable of one-trial learning common to CTA experiments, this high level of response is the opposite of what would occur if the bees developed a CTA. Responding on subsequent trials also showed a general inhibitory effect of EtOH. Finally, we found that consumption of cinnamon extract reduced the effects of EtOH.

CONCLUSIONS

The honey bees' lack of learned avoidance to EtOH mirrors that seen in human alcoholism. These findings demonstrate the usefulness of honey bees as an insect model for EtOH consumption.

Studies of learned helplessness in honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica)

The current study reports 2 experiments investigating learned helplessness in the honey bee (Apis mellifera ligustica). In Experiment 1, we used a traditional escape method but found the bees' activity levels too high to observe changes due to treatment conditions. The bees were not able to learn in this traditional escape procedure; thus, such procedures may be inappropriate to study learned helplessness in honey bees. In Experiment 2, we used an alternative punishment, or passive avoidance, method to investigate learned helplessness. Using a master and yoked design where bees were trained as either master or yoked and tested as either master or yoked, we found that prior training with unavoidable and inescapable shock in the yoked condition interfered with avoidance and escape behavior in the later master condition. Unlike control bees, learned helplessness bees failed to restrict their movement to the safe compartment following inescapable shock. Unlike learned helplessness studies in other animals, no decrease in general activity was observed. Furthermore, we did not observe a "freezing" response to inescapable aversive stimuli-a phenomenon, thus far, consistently observed in learned helplessness tests with other species. The bees, instead, continued to move back and forth between compartments despite punishment in the incorrect compartment. These findings suggest that, although traditional escape methods may not be suitable, honey bees display learned helplessness in passive avoidance procedures. Thus, regardless of behavioral differences from other species, honey bees can be a unique invertebrate model organism for the study of learned helplessness. (PsycINFO Database Record

Operant Conditioning in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.): The Cap Pushing Response

The honey bee has been an important model organism for studying learning and memory. More recently, the honey bee has become a valuable model to understand perception and cognition. However, the techniques used to explore psychological phenomena in honey bees have been limited to only a few primary methodologies such as the proboscis extension reflex, sting extension reflex, and free flying target discrimination-tasks. Methods to explore operant conditioning in bees and other invertebrates are not as varied as with vertebrates. This may be due to the availability of a suitable response requirement. In this manuscript we offer a new method to explore operant conditioning in honey bees: the cap pushing response (CPR). We used the CPR to test for difference in learning curves between novel auto-shaping and more traditional explicit-shaping. The CPR protocol requires bees to exhibit a novel behavior by pushing a cap to uncover a food source. Using the CPR protocol we tested the effects of both explicit-shaping and auto-shaping techniques on operant conditioning. The goodness of fit and lack of fit of these data to the Rescorla-Wagner learning-curve model, widely used in classical conditioning studies, was tested. The model fit well to both control and explicit-shaping results, but only for a limited number of trials. Learning ceased rather than continuing to asymptotically approach the physiological most accurate possible. Rate of learning differed between shaped and control bee treatments. Learning rate was about 3 times faster for shaped bees, but for all measures of proficiency control and shaped bees reached the same level. Auto-shaped bees showed one-trial learning rather than the asymptotic approach to a maximal efficiency. However, in terms of return-time, the auto-shaped bees’ learning did not carry over to the covered-well test treatments.

Aversive conditioning in honey bees (Apis mellifera anatolica): a comparison of drones and workers

Honey bees provide a model system to elucidate the relationship between sociality and complex behaviors within the same species, as females (workers) are highly social and males (drones) are more solitary. We report on aversive learning studies in drone and worker honey bees (Apis mellifera anatolica) in escape, punishment and discriminative punishment situations. In all three experiments, a newly developed electric shock avoidance assay was used. The comparisons of expected and observed responses were performed with conventional statistical methods and a systematic randomization modeling approach called object oriented modeling. The escape experiment consisted of two measurements recorded in a master-yoked paradigm: frequency of response and latency to respond following administration of shock. Master individuals could terminate an unavoidable shock triggered by a decrementing 30 s timer by crossing the shuttlebox centerline following shock activation. Across all groups, there was large individual response variation. When assessing group response frequency and latency, master subjects performed better than yoked subjects for both workers and drones. In the punishment experiment, individuals were shocked upon entering the shock portion of a bilaterally wired shuttlebox. The shock portion was spatially static and unsignalled. Only workers effectively avoided the shock. The discriminative punishment experiment repeated the punishment experiment but included a counterbalanced blue and yellow background signal and the side of shock was manipulated. Drones correctly responded less than workers when shock was paired with blue. However, when shock was paired with yellow there was no observable difference between drones and workers.