4.5 Article

Odour aversion after olfactory conditioning of the sting extension reflex in honeybees

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 212, 期 5, 页码 620-626

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.026641

关键词

appetitive learning; aversive learning; classical conditioning; avoidance; olfaction; honeybee

类别

资金

  1. BEESHOP
  2. French National Research Agency [BLAN08-3-337040]
  3. French Research Council
  4. University Paul-Sabatier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Pavlovian conditioning, an originally neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus or CS) gains control over an animal's reflex after its association with a biologically relevant stimulus (unconditioned stimulus or US). As a consequence, a conditioned response is emitted by the animal upon further CS presentations. In such a situation, the subject exhibits a reflex response, so that whether the CS thereby acquires a positive or a negative value for the animal is difficult to assess. In honeybees, Apis mellifera, an odour (CS) can be associated either with sucrose solution (US) in the appetitive conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER), or with an electric shock (US) in the aversive conditioning of the sting extension reflex (SER). The term 'aversive' may not apply to the latter as bees do not suppress SER as a consequence of learning but, on the contrary, start emitting SER to the CS. To determine whether the CS acquires a positive or a negative value in these conditioning forms, we compared the orientation behaviour of freely walking honeybees in an olfactory-cued Y-maze after training them with an odour-sucrose association (PER conditioning) or an odour-shock association (SER conditioning). We show that the same odours can acquire either a positive value when associated to sucrose, or a negative value when associated to an electric shock, as bees respectively approach or avoid the CS in the Y-maze. Importantly, these results clearly establish the aversive nature of SER conditioning in honeybees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据