4.8 Article

Way-finding in displaced clock-shifted bees proves bees use a cognitive map

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408039111

关键词

navigation; course-setting; shortcuts; terrain map; circadian

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden [UOA07-212]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Me 365/34-2]
  3. Hertie Gemeinnutzige Stiftung
  4. Dr. Klaus Tschira Stiftung
  5. Joint Program Germany-New Zealand (Internationale Zusammenarbeit Neuseeland-Deutschland) [01DR12054]
  6. Royal Society of New Zealand New Zealand-Germany ST programme [FRG11-27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammals navigate by means of a metric cognitive map. Insects, most notably bees and ants, are also impressive navigators. The question whether they, too, have a metric cognitive map is important to cognitive science and neuroscience. Experimentally captured and displaced bees often depart from the release site in the compass direction they were bent on before their capture, even though this no longer heads them toward their goal. When they discover their error, however, the bees set off more or less directly toward their goal. This ability to orient toward a goal from an arbitrary point in the familiar environment is evidence that they have an integrated metric map of the experienced environment. We report a test of an alternative hypothesis, which is that all the bees have in memory is a collection of snapshots that enable them to recognize different landmarks and, associated with each such snapshot, a sun-compass-referenced home vector derived from dead reckoning done before and after previous visits to the landmark. We show that a large shift in the sun-compass rapidly induced by general anesthesia does not alter the accuracy or speed of the homeward-oriented flight made after the bees discover the error in their initial postrelease flight. This result rules out the sun-referenced home-vector hypothesis, further strengthening the now extensive evidence for a metric cognitive map in bees.

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

4.8
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