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


spacer gif
     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
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Cheng, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cheng, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

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).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005