Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Latent inhibition in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: Is it a unitary phenomenon?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Latent inhibition refers to learning that some stimuli are not signals of important events. It has been widely studied in vertebrates, but it has been substantially less well studied in invertebrates. We present an investigation into latent inhibition in the honey bee (Apis mellifera) using a proboscis extension response conditioning procedure that involved ‘preexposure’ of an odor without reinforcement prior to appetitive conditioning. A significant latent inhibition effect, measured in terms of a reduction in acquisition performance to the preexposed odor, was observed after 8 unreinforced presentations, and the effect continued to increase in strength up to 30 presentations. We also observed that memories formed for the preexposed odor lasted at least 24 h. Further manipulation of interstimulus interval and the visual conditioning context partially attenuated the effect. The latter results indicate that latent inhibition in honey bees may not be a unitary phenomenon. Two different mechanisms may be required, in which one mechanism is dependent on the visual context and the second is not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Abramson CI, Bitterman ME (1986) Latent inhibition in honeybees. Anim Learn Behav 14:184–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguado L, Symonds M, Hall G (1994) Interval between preexposure and test determines the magnitude of latent inhibition: implications for an interference account. Anim Learn Behav 22:188–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Akins CK (1994) Topography of sexually conditioned behavior in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) depends on the CS-US interval. J Exp Psych Anim Behav Process 20:199–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barbarossa IT, Muroni P, Setzu MD, Angioy AM (2007) Dose-dependent nonassociative olfactory learning in a fly. Chem Senses 32:535–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck CD, Schroeder B, Davis RL (2000) Learning performance of normal and mutant Drosophila after repeated conditioning trials with discrete stimuli. J Neurosci 20:2944–2953

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Best MR, Gemberling GA (1977) Role of short-term processes in the conditioned stimulus preexposure effect and the delay of reinforcement gradient in long-delay taste-aversion learning. J Exp Psych: Anim Behav Proc 3:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitterman ME, Menzel R, Fietz A, Schafer S (1983) Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 97:107–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boughner RL, Papini MR (2003) Appetitive latent inhibition in rats: now you see it (sign trackingl) now you don’t (goal tracking). Learn Behav 31(4):387–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra SBC, Hosler JS, Smith BH (2000) Heritable variation for latent inhibition and its correlation to reversal learning in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. J Comp Psychol 114:86–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra SBC, Hunt G, Smith BH (2001) Quantitative trait loci associated with reversal learning and latent inhibition in honeybees (Apis mellifera). Behav Gen 31:275–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Couvillon PA, Burmanglag AV, Bitterman ME (2003) Inhibitory conditioning in honeybees. Quart J Exp Psych B 56(4):359–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Couvillon PA, Hsiung R, Cooke AM, Bitterman ME (2005) The role of context in the inhibitory conditioning of honeybees. Q J Exp Psychol B 58:59–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devaud J-M, Acebes A, Ferrús A (2001) Odor exposure causes central adaptation and morphological changes in selected olfactory glomeruli in Drosophila. J Neurosci 21:6274–6282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer J, Fischer K, Stengl M (2003) Adaptation in pheromone-sensitive trichoid sensilla of the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 206:1575–1588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar M, Arcediano F, Miller RR (2002) Latent inhibition and contextual associations. J Exp Psychol 28:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley J (1987) Contingency learning and causal detection in Hermissenda: I. Behavior. Behav Neurosci 101:13–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson HJ, Cobey S, Smith BH (2001) Sensitivity to a change in reward is heritable in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Anim Behav 61:527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández VM, Arenas A, Farina WM (2009) Volatile exposure within the honeybee hive and its effect on olfactory discrimination. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 195:759–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber B, Smith BH (1998) Visual modulation of olfactory learning in honeybees. J Exp Biol 201:2213–2217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Latshaw JS, Smith BH (2005) Heritable variation in learning performance affects foraging preferences in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF, Preston GC, Mackintosh NJ (1984) J Exp Psych Anim Behav Process 10(3):360–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow RE (1973) Latent inhibition. Psychol Bull 79:398–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow RE (1997) Latent inhibition as a measure of learned inattention: some problems and solutions. Behav Brain Res 88:75–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow RE, Moore AU (1959) Latent inhibition: the effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditioned stimulus. J Comp Physiol 52:415–419

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow RE, Weiner I, Schnur P (1981) Conditioned attention theory. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 15. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ (1975) A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychol Rev 82:276–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ (1983) Conditioning and associative learning. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuhr T, Menzel R (1972) Learning experiments on the use of side-specific information in the olfactory and visual system in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). In: Wehner R (ed) Information processing in the visual systems of arthropods. Springer, New York, pp 315–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel R (1990) Learning, memory, and ‘cognition’ in honeybees. In: Kesner RP, Olton DS (eds) Neurobiology of comparative cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 237–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel R, Heyne A, Kinzel C, Gerber B, Fiala A (1999) Pharmacological dissociation between the reinforcing, sensitizing, and response-releasing functions of reward in honeybee classical conditioning. Behav Neurosci 113:744–754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel R, Manz G, Greggers U (2001) Massed and spaced learning in honeybees: the role of CS, US, the intertrial interval, and the test interval. Learn Mem 8:198–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RR, Matzel LD (1988) The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 22. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 51–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Pankiw T, Page RE (1999) The effect of genotype, age, sex, and caste on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Physiol A 185:207–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Bouton ME (2001) Theories of associative learning in animals. Ann Rev Psychol 52:111–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Hall G (1980) A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev 87:532–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin CH (2000) Context conditioning in habituation in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Behav Neurosci 114:496–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1991) Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science 253:980–986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed P (1995) Compound stimulus preexposure effects in an appetitive conditioning procedure. Learn Motivat 26(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA (1969) Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Psychol Bull 72:77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA (1988) Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Ann Rev Neurosci 11:329–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez G, Hall G (2008) Potentiation of latent inhibition. J Exp Psych Anim Behav Proc 34(3):352–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahley CL, Boulis NM, Schurman B (1994) Associative learning modifies the shortening reflex in the semi-intact leech Hirudo medicinalis: effects of pairing, predictability, and CS preexposure. Behav Neurosci 108:340–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz JC, Laloi D, Odoux JF, Pham-Delègue MH (2000) Olfactory information transfer in the honeybee: compared efficiency of classical conditioning and early exposure. Anim Behav 59(5):1025–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1996) The Wisdom of the hive. Harvard, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir S, Wiegmann DD, Smith BH, Real LA (1999) Risk-sensitive foraging: choice behaviour of honeybees in response to variability in volume of reward. Anim Behav 57:1055–1061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1969) Effect of CS habituation on eyelid conditioning. J Comp Psychol 68:245–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BH (1997) An analysis of blocking in binary odorant mixtures: an increase but not a decrease in intensity of reinforcement produces unblocking. Behav Neurosci 111:57–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BH (1998) An analysis interaction in binary odorant mixtures. Physiol Behav 65:397–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BH, Menzel R (1989) The use of electromyogram recordings to quantify odorant discrimination in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. J Insect Physiol 35:369–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BH, Wright GA, Daly KS (2006) Learning-based recognition and discrimination of floral odors. In: Dudareva N, Pichersky E (eds) The biology and chemistry of floral scents. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR (1981) SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In: Spear NE, Miller RR (eds) Information processing in animals: memory mechanisms. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 5–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR (2003) Context-sensitive elemental theory. Q J Exp Psychol 56B:7–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright GA, Skinner BD, Smith BH (2002) The ability of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, to detect and discriminate among the odors of varieties of canola flowers (Brassica rapa and Brassica napus) and snapdragon flowers (Antirrhinum majus). J Chem Ecol 28(4):721–740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright GA, Lutmerding A, Dudareva N, Smith BH (2005) Intensity and the ratios of compounds in the scent of snapdragon flowers affect scent discrimination by honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Phys A 191:105–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zufall F, Leinders-Zufal T (2000) The cellular and molecular basis of odor adaptation. Chem Sen 25:473–481

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by grants from NIH-NCRR (R01 RR14166) and NIH-NIDCD (DC007997) to BHS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological, Chemical and Physical Sciences, Roosevelt University, 430 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA

    Sathees B. C. Chandra

  2. Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Geraldine A. Wright

  3. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874501, Tempe, AZ, 85287-4501, USA

    Brian H. Smith

Authors
  1. Sathees B. C. Chandra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geraldine A. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian H. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian H. Smith.

Additional information

All authors contributed equally to collection of data for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandra, S.B.C., Wright, G.A. & Smith, B.H. Latent inhibition in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: Is it a unitary phenomenon?. Anim Cogn 13, 805–815 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0329-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0329-6

Keywords