4.7 Article

Mind the Gap: Olfactory Trace Conditioning in Honeybees

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 20, 页码 7229-7239

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6668-10.2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung [01GQ0771, 01GQ0931]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [GA524/8-1, GA524/12-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trace conditioning is a form of classical conditioning, where a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) is associated with a following appetitive or aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US). Unlike classical delay conditioning, in trace conditioning there is a stimulus-free gap between CS and US, and thus a poststimulus neural representation (trace) of the CS is required to bridge the gap until its association with the US. The properties of such stimulus traces are not well understood, nor are their underlying physiological mechanisms. Using behavioral and physiological approaches, we studied appetitive olfactory trace conditioning in honeybees. We found that single-odor presentation created a trace containing information about odor identity. This trace conveyed odor information about the initial stimulus and was robust against interference by other odors. Memory acquisition decreased with increasing CS-US gap length. The maximum learnable CS-US gap length could be extended by previous trace-conditioning experience. Furthermore, acquisition improved when an additional odor was presented during the CS-US gap. Using calcium imaging, we tested whether projection neurons in the primary olfactory brain area, the antennal lobe, contain a CS trace. We found odor-specific persistent responses after stimulus offset. These post-odor responses, however, did not encode the CS trace, and perceived odor quality could be predicted by the initial but not by the post-odor response. Our data suggest that olfactory trace conditioning is a less reflexive form of learning than classical delay conditioning, indicating that odor traces might involve higher-level cognitive processes.

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

4.7
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