QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online March 14, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1019-1024 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01499

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cheng, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cheng, K.

Context cues eliminate retroactive interference effects in honeybees Apis mellifera

Ken Cheng

Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

View larger version (146K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Photograph of experimental locations used for contexts. Location 1 was used in both experiments. Location 2, the location of the other context, differed between experiments. At location 2, experiment 1, the table shown is not the correct size. The table shown at location 1 was also used for the other context in experiment 1 (moved between tasks). Location 2, experiment 1 was by a similar wall with windows, like location 2, experiment 2. None of the tables have the coverings used for experimentation. See Materials and methods for further description.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. The proportion of searching at the target in experiment 1, out of searching at four locations (mean ± S.E.M.). Chance level is 0.25.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The amount of searching, measured by total score on a 2 min test, in experiment 1 (mean ± S.E.M).

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The proportion of searching at the target in experiment 2, out of searching at four locations (mean ± S.E.M). Chance level is 0.25.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The amount of searching, measured by total score on a 2 min test, in experiment 2 (mean ± S.E.M).