spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shapiro, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Bitterman, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shapiro, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Bitterman, M. E.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 204, Issue 3 565-573, Copyright © 2001 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Quantitative tests of an associative theory of risk-sensitivity in honeybees

MS Shapiro, PA Couvillon and ME Bitterman
Department of Mathematics and Science, Leeward Community College, Pearl City, HI 96782, USA.

Risk-sensitivity was studied in free-flying honeybees trained individually to choose between two scented targets (A and B) with varying amounts and concentrations of sucrose solution as reward. In the first phase of experiment 1, the animals showed "risk-aversion," preferring A, which provided 5 microl of a 40 % sucrose solution on every trial, to B, which provided 30 microl of the same solution once in every six trials (mean amount per trial 5 microl for each alternative). In the second phase, the preference reversed with reversal of the reward assignments. In experiment 2, the consistently rewarded A (5 microl of 40 % sucrose solution per trial) was again preferred, although the inconsistently rewarded B now provided twice the amount of sucrose solution on average (30 microl on two of every six trials, mean amount per trial 10 microl). In experiment 3, with A providing 10 microl of a 15 % sucrose solution on every trial and B providing 10 microl of a 60 % sucrose solution on two of every four trials (mean concentration per trial 30 %), the animals preferred B. In Experiment 4, patterned after experiment 1, similar results were obtained under more natural conditions in which the animals were no longer constrained (as they were in the first three experiments) to go equally often to each alternative. The results of all four experiments were predicted quantitatively and with considerable accuracy by a simple associative theory of discriminative learning in honeybees.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Learn. Mem.Home page
M. Gil, R. J. De Marco, and R. Menzel
Learning reward expectations in honeybees
Learn. Mem., July 12, 2007; 14(7): 491 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
C. Schuck-Paim and A. Kacelnik
Choice processes in multialternative decision making
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2007; 18(3): 541 - 550.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
T. Drezner-Levy and S. Shafir
Parameters of variable reward distributions that affect risk sensitivity of honey bees
J. Exp. Biol., January 15, 2007; 210(2): 269 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
S. T. Behmer, C. E. Belt, and M. S. Shapiro
Variable rewards and discrimination ability in an insect herbivore: what and how does a hungry locust learn?
J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2005; 208(18): 3463 - 3473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2001