Side-specificity of olfactory learning in the honeybee: US input side

In honeybees, Apis mellifera L., the proboscis extension reflex (PER) can be conditioned by associating an odor stimulus (CS) with a sucrose reward (US). As the neural structures involved in the detection and integration of CS and US are bilaterally symmetrical in the bee brain, we ask what respective role each brain side plays in the conditioning process. More specifically, the US normally used in conditioning experiments is the compound stimulation of the antennae (which triggers the PER) and of the proboscis (where bees lick the sucrose solution). Anatomically, the brain receives unilateral US input through each antenna, but bilateral input from the proboscis. By controlling each US component, we show that an antenna–US produces unilateral sensitization, whereas a proboscis–US or a compound–US induces bilateral sensitization. Bees can learn a unilateral odor CS with all three USs, but when a proboscis–US is used, new learning is inhibited on the contralateral side, owing to a possible US-preexposure effect. Furthermore, we show that the antenna–US induces both unilateral and bilateral reinforcement processes, whereas the proboscis–US produces only bilateral effects. Based on these data, we propose a functional model of the role of each brain side in processing lateralized CSs and USs in olfactory learning in honeybees.     

Color modulates olfactory learning in honeybees by an occasion-setting mechanism

A sophisticated form of nonelemental learning is provided by occasion setting. In this paradigm, animals learn to disambiguate an uncertain conditioned stimulus using alternative stimuli that do not enter into direct association with the unconditioned stimulus. For instance, animals may learn to discriminate odor rewarded from odor nonrewarded trials if these two situations are indicated by different colors that do not themselves become associated with the reward. Despite a growing interest in nonelemental learning in insects, no study has so far attempted to study occasion setting in restrained honeybees, although this would allow direct access to the neural basis of nonelemental learning. Here we asked whether colors can modulate olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) via an occasion-setting mechanism. We show that intact, harnessed bees are not capable of learning a direct association between color and sucrose. Despite this incapacity, bees solved an occasion-setting discrimination in which colors set the occasion for appropriate responding to an odor that was rewarded or nonrewarded depending on the color. We therefore provide the first controlled demonstration of bimodal (color-odor) occasion setting in harnessed honeybees, which opens the door for studying the neural basis of such bimodal, nonelemental discriminations in insects.     

Associative mechanosensory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex in honeybees

The present work introduces a form of associative mechanosensory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honeybees. In our paradigm, harnessed honeybees learn the elemental association between mechanosensory, antennal stimulation and a reward of sucrose solution delivered to the proboscis. Thereafter, bees extend their proboscis to the antennal mechanosensory stimulation alone. We show that bees can learn such an association in a side-specific manner, that is, they learn the association on the antennal side that was rewarded and not on the side that was not rewarded. Responding produced by the paired training does likely contain a substantial Pavlovian component. Responding is only elicited by mechanosensory stimulation and not by spurious cues such as olfactory, visual, and contextual ones. The interstimulus interval (ISI) affects one-trial mechanosensory learning: a bell-shaped curve with a maximum of responding approximately 4 sec ISI was obtained. Mechanosensory memory is still operative 24 h after conditioning. Apart from absolute conditioning in which mechanosensory stimulation of one antenna is paired with sucrose, differential, side-specific, mechanosensory conditioning using two mechanosensory stimulations, one rewarded and the other not, is also possible. This paradigm constitutes, therefore, a new standard procedure for further learning studies in honeybees.     

Simultaneous conditioning in honeybees (Apis mellifera).

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) were classically conditioned with odor as conditioned stimulus (CS), sucrose as unconditioned stimulus (US), and proboscis extension as response. The purpose of Experiment 1 (Ns = 26 and 27) was to look for facilitation of forward conditioning by CS-US overlap, but rapid conditioning without overlap left little room for improvement. In 2 further experiments, CS and US were simultaneous, and response to odor alone was measured in subsequent tests. In Experiment 2, a Simultaneous group (N = 25) responded more to the training odor than did an Unpaired control group (N = 25). In Experiment 3, a differentially conditioned Simultaneous group (N = 29) responded more to an odor paired with sucrose in training (S+) than to an odor presented alone (S-). The implications of the results for the problem of the role of amount of reward in honeybee learning are considered.     

Configural olfactory learning in honeybees: negative and positive patterning discrimination

In an appetitive context, honeybees (Apis mellifera) learn to associate odors with a reward of sucrose solution. If an odor is presented immediately before the sucrose, an elemental association is formed that enables the odor to release the proboscis extension response (PER). Olfactory conditioning of PER was used to study whether, beyond elemental associations, honeybees are able to process configural associations. Bees were trained in a positive and anegative patterning discrimination problem. In the first problem, single odorants were nonreinforced whereas the compound was reinforced. In the second problem, single odorants were reinforced whereas the compound was nonreinforced. We studied whether bees can solve these problems and whether the ratio between the number of presentations of the reinforced stimuli and the number of presentations of the nonreinforced stimuli affects discrimination. Honeybees differentiated reinforced and nonreinforced stimuli in positive and negative patterning discriminations. They thus can process configural associations. The variation of the ratio of reinforced to nonreinforced stimuli modulated the amount of differentiation. The assignment of singular codes to complex odor blends could be implemented at the neural level: When bees are stimulated with odor mixtures, the activation patterns evoked at the primary olfactory neuropile, the antennal lobe, may be combinations of the single odorant responses that are not necessarily fully additive.     

Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees

Honeybees Apis mellifera can associate an originally neutral odor with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Forward pairings of odor and reinforcement enable the odor to release the proboscis extension reflex in consecutive tests. Bees can also be conditioned differentially: They learn to respond to a reinforced odor and not to a nonreinforced one. They can also learn to reverse their choice. Here we ask whether honeybees can learn successive olfactory differential conditioning tasks involving different overlapping pairs of odors. The conditioning schedules were established in order to train the animals with 3, 2, 1, or 0 reversals previous to a last differential conditioning phase in which two additional reversals were present. We studied whether or not successive reversal learning is possible and whether or not learning olfactory discrimination reversals affects the solving of subsequent discrimination reversals. Therefore we compared the responses of bees that had experienced reversals with those of bees that had not experienced such reversals when both are confronted with a new reversal situation. In experiment 1 we showed that bees that had experienced three previous reversals were better in solving the final reversal task than bees with no previous reversal experience. In experiment 2, we showed that one reversal learning is enough for bees to perform better in the final reversal task. The successive different reversals trained in our experiments resemble the natural foraging situation in which a honeybee forager has to switch successively from an initial floral species to different ones. The fact that experiencing such changes seems to improve a bee's performance in dealing with further new exploited food sources has therefore an adaptive impact for the individual and for the colony as a whole.     

Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees

In tactile learning, sucrose is the unconditioned stimulus and reward, which is usually applied to the antenna to elicit proboscis extension and which the bee can drink when it is subsequently applied to the extended proboscis. The conditioned stimulus is a tactile object that the bee can scan with its antennae. In this paper we describe the quantitative relationships between gustatory antennal stimulation, gustatory proboscis stimulation, and tactile learning and memory. Bees are 10-fold more responsive to sucrose solutions when they are applied to the antenna compared to proboscis stimulation. During tactile conditioning, the sucrose solution applied to the proboscis determines the level of acquisition, whereas antennal input is of minor importance. Bees differing in their gustatory responsiveness measured at the antenna differ strongly in their tactile acquisition and memory. We demonstrate how these differences in tactile acquisition and memory can be greatly reduced by calculating equal subjective rewards, based on individual gustatory responsiveness.     

Context-dependent olfactory learning monitored by activities of salivary neurons in cockroaches

Context-dependent discrimination learning, a sophisticated form of nonelemental associative learning, has been found in many animals, including insects. The major purpose of this research is to establish a method for monitoring this form of nonelemental learning in rigidly restrained insects for investigation of underlying neural mechanisms. We report context-dependent olfactory learning (occasion-setting problem solving) of salivation, which can be monitored as activity changes of salivary neurons in immobilized cockroaches, Periplaneta americana. A group of cockroaches was trained to associate peppermint odor (conditioned stimulus, CS) with sucrose solution reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) while vanilla odor was presented alone without pairing with the US under a flickering light condition (1.0 Hz) and also trained to associate vanilla odor with sucrose reward while peppermint odor was presented alone under a steady light condition. After training, the responses of salivary neurons to the rewarded peppermint odor were significantly greater than those to the unrewarded vanilla odor under steady illumination and those to the rewarded vanilla odor was significantly greater than those to the unrewarded peppermint odor in the presence of flickering light. Similar context-dependent responses were observed in another group of cockroaches trained with the opposite stimulus arrangement. This study demonstrates context-dependent olfactory learning of salivation for the first time in any vertebrate and invertebrate species, which can be monitored by activity changes of salivary neurons in restrained cockroaches.     

Conditioned suppression of proboscis extension in Drosophila melanogaster

Food-deprived Drosophila melanogaster extend their proboscises following sucrose stimulation of the front tarsi (the proboscis extension reflex). Médioni and Vaysse (1975) reported that the inhibition of this response can be conditioned over trials if such proboscis extensions are punished by applying an aversive stimulus to the foreleg tarsi. In this study, Médioni and Vaysse's basic observations of conditioning were replicated, with a different strain of flies and a modified conditioning apparatus.     

Aversive learning overcomes appetitive innate responding in honeybees

Despite their miniature brain, honeybees have emerged as a powerful model for the study of learning and memory. Yet, they also exhibit innate responses to biologically relevant social signals such as pheromones. Here, we asked whether the bees’ developed learning capabilities allow them to overcome hardwired appetitive responses. Can they learn that attractant pheromones, that are not normally associated with a noxious stimulation in nature, predict the punishment of an electric shock? Immobilized honeybees were trained to discriminate two odorants, one that was paired with a shock and another that had no consequences. We measured whether they learned to produce aversive sting extension responses to the punished but not the non-punished odorant. One odorant was a neutral odor without innate value while the other was either an attractive pheromone (geraniol or citral) or an attractive floral odorant (phenylacetaldehyde). In all cases, bees developed a conditioned aversive response to the punished odorant, be it pheromone or not, and efficiently retrieved this information 1 h later. No learning asymmetries between odors were found. Thus, associative aversive learning in bees is strong enough to override preprogrammed responding, thus reflecting an impressive behavioral flexibility.     

Forward and backward second-order Pavlovian conditioning in honeybees

Second-order conditioning (SOC) is the association of a neutral stimulus with another stimulus that had previously been combined with an unconditioned stimulus (US). We used classical conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) in honeybees (Apis mellifera) with odors (CS) and sugar (US). Previous SOC experiments in bees were inconclusive, and, therefore, we attempted to demonstrate SOC in the following three experiments: (Experiment 1) After differential conditioning (pairing odor A with US and presenting odor B without US), the bees experienced two pairs of partially overlapping odors, either a new odor C followed by a previously reinforced odor A (C-A) or a new odor C followed by a previously nonreinforced odor B (C-B). (Experiment 2) After differential conditioning, bees were presented with C-A or A-C. (Experiment 3) Bees were first presented with C-A or A-C before differential conditioning and were tested with odor C. We observed: (Experiment 1) 40% of the bees showed PER to the C-A presentation, but only 20% showed PER to the C-B presentation. (Experiment 2) 40% of the bees showed PER to the C-A presentation, while only 20% showed PER to the reversed sequence A-C. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a previously reinforced odor can be a secondary reinforcer for excitatory SOC only with forward-pairing. (Experiment 3) PER toward C was lower (15%) in bees presented with A-C than with C-A (25%). This showed that backward SOC is not as effective as forward SOC. These results help to delineate different conditions that are critical for the phenomenon of SOC.     

Salivary conditioning with antennal gustatory unconditioned stimulus in an insect

Classical conditioning of olfactory conditioning stimulus (CS) with gustatory unconditioned stimulus (US) in insects has been used as a pertinent model for elucidation of neural mechanisms underlying learning and memory. However, a conditioning system in which stable intracellular recordings from brain neurons are feasibly obtained while monitoring the conditioning effect has remained to be established. Recently, we found classical conditioning of salivation in cockroaches Periplaneta americana, in which an odor was associated with sucrose solution applied to the mouth, and this conditioning could be monitored by activities of salivary neurons. Application of gustatory US to the mouth, however, leads to feeding movement accompanying a movement of the brain that prevents stable recordings from brain neurons. Here we investigated whether a gustatory stimulus presented to an antenna could serve as an effective US for producing salivary conditioning. Presentation of sucrose or sodium chloride solution to an antenna induced salivation and also increased activities of salivary neurons. A single pairing trial of an odor with antennal presentation of sucrose or sodium chloride solution produced conditioning of salivation or of activities of salivary neurons. Five pairing trials led to a conditioning effect that lasted for one day. Water or tactile stimulus presented to an antenna was not effective for producing conditioning. The results demonstrate that gustatory US presented to an antenna is as effective as that presented to the mouth for producing salivary conditioning. This conditioning system provides a useful model for studying the neural basis of learning at the level of singly identifiable neurons.     

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

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.     

Decision-making and associative color learning in harnessed bumblebees (Bombus impatiens)

In honeybees, the conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) has provided a powerful tool to explore the mechanisms underlying olfactory learning and memory. Unfortunately, PER conditioning does not work well for visual stimuli in intact honeybees, and performance is improved only after antennal amputation, thus limiting the analysis of visual learning and multimodal integration. Here, we study visual learning using the PER protocol in harnessed bumblebees, which exhibit high levels of odor learning under restrained conditions. We trained bumblebees in a differential task in which two colors differed in their rewarding values. We recorded learning performance as well as response latency and accuracy. Bumblebees rapidly learned the task and discriminated the colors within the first two trials. However, performance varied between combinations of colors and was higher when blue or violet was associated with a high reward. Overall, accuracy and speed were negatively associated, but both components increased during acquisition. We conclude that PER conditioning is a good tool to study visual learning, using Bombus impatiens as a model, opening new possibilities to analyze the proximate mechanisms of visual learning and memory, as well as the process of multimodal integration and decision-making.     

Latent inhibition of a CS during CS-US pairings

In each of three experiments rats were trained by the conditioned-emotional-response technique with a conditioned stimulus (CS) predicting a relatively weak shock, the unconditioned stimulus (US). In the second stage of training the intensity of the shock was increased, and it was found that subjects for whom the same CS was used in both stages acquired further suppression less readily than subjects that experiences a new CS in the second stage. The implication of these results for theories of attention and for theories of habituation is discussed. It is suggested that associations formed by the test CS during the first stage of training reduce the readiness of the stimulus to enter into new associations, either because an association between the stimulus and the context reduces further processing of the stimulus or because the association between the test stimulus and the weak shock attenuates the formation of an association with the stronger shock.     

Activity of cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) affects sucrose responsiveness and habituation in Drosophila melanogaster

The cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) has many cellular functions in vertebrates and insects that affect complex behaviors such as locomotion and foraging. The foraging (for) gene encodes a PKG in Drosophila melanogaster. Here, we demonstrate a function for the for gene in sensory responsiveness and nonassociative learning. Larvae of the natural variant sitter (for(s)) show less locomotor activity during feeding and have a lower PKG activity than rover (for(R)) larvae. We used rover and sitter adult flies to test whether PKG activity affects (1) responsiveness to sucrose stimuli applied to the front tarsi, and (2) habituation of proboscis extension after repeated sucrose stimulation. To determine whether the differences observed resulted from variation in the for gene, we also tested for(s2), a sitter mutant produced on a rover genetic background. We found that rovers (for(R)) were more responsive to sucrose than sitters (for(s) and for(s2)) at 1-, 2-, and 3-wk old. This was true for both sexes. Differences in sucrose responsiveness between rovers and sitters were greater after 2 h of food deprivation than after 24 h. Of flies with similar sucrose responsiveness, for(R) rovers showed less habituation and generalization of habituation than for(s) and for(s2) sitters. These results show that the PKG encoded by for independently affects sensory responsiveness and habituation in Drosophila melanogaster.     

Spontaneous recovery after extinction of the conditioned proboscis extension response in the honeybee

In honeybees, the proboscis extension response (PER) can be conditioned by associating an odor stimulus (CS) to a sucrose reward (US). Conditioned responses to the CS, which are acquired by most bees after a single CS-US pairing, disappear after repeated unrewarded presentations of the CS, a process called extinction. Extinction is usually thought to be based either on (1) the disruption of the stored CS-US association, or (2) the formation of an inhibitory "CS-no US" association that is better retrieved than the initial CS-US association. The observation of spontaneous recovery, i.e., the reappearance of responses to the CS after time passes following extinction, is traditionally interpreted as a proof for the formation of a transient inhibitory association. To provide a better understanding of extinction in honeybees, we examined whether time intervals during training and extinction or the number of conditioning and extinction trials have an effect on the occurrence of spontaneous recovery. We found that spontaneous recovery mostly occurs when conditioning and testing took place in a massed fashion (1-min intertrial intervals). Moreover, spontaneous recovery depended on the time elapsed since extinction, 1 h being an optimum. Increasing the number of conditioning trials improved the spontaneous recovery level, whereas increasing the number of extinction trials reduced it. Lastly, we show that after single-trial conditioning, spontaneous recovery appears only once after extinction. These elements suggest that in honeybees extinction of the PER actually reflects the impairment of the CS-US association, but that depending on training parameters different memory substrates are affected.     

Appetitive and aversive olfactory learning induce similar generalization rates in the honey bee

Appetitive and aversive learning drive an animal toward or away from stimuli predicting reinforcement, respectively. The specificity of these memories may vary due to differences in cost–benefit relationships associated with appetitive and aversive contexts. As a consequence, generalization performances may differ after appetitive and aversive training. Here, we determined whether honey bees show different rates of olfactory generalization following appetitive olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response, or aversive olfactory conditioning of the sting extension response. In both cases, we performed differential conditioning, which improves discrimination learning between a reinforced odor (CS+) and a non-reinforced odor (CS?) and evaluated generalization to two novel odors whose similarity to the CS+ and the CS? was different. We show, given the same level of discriminatory performance, that rates of generalization are similar between the two conditioning protocols and discuss the possible causes for this phenomenon.     

The Influence of Retention Interval on the US Preexposure Effect: Changes in Contextual Blocking over Time

A number of studies manipulating the length of the interval between conditioning and testing indicate spontaneous recovery from overshadowing, suggesting that certain instances of overshadowing represent a deficit in memory retrieval rather than a failure of animals to form an association between the overshadowed stimulus and the US. The present series of experiments examined the influence of lengthening the retention interval on blocking, another stimulus selection phenomenon that is typically interpreted as an acquisition deficit. The results indicated that when subjects were tested shortly (3 days) after training conditioning to a taste blocked subsequent conditioning to an odor conditioned in compound with that taste (Experiment 1), whereas prior conditioning to an odor did not block subsequent conditioning to a taste conditioned in compound with that odor (Experiment 2). This pattern of results was essentially unchanged when testing occurred at a longer (21-day) retention interval. However, there was evidence of a US preexposure effect in Experiment 2 when subjects in the US ONLY control condition were tested at the 3-day retention interval, but not when testing occurred 21 days after conditioning. Experiments 3 and 4 examined whether this loss of the US preexposure effect over time might actually represent a change in the degree of contextual blocking as the retention interval is lengthened. Exposure to the conditioning context either during the interval between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of conditioning (Experiment 3) or prior to Phase 1 of conditioning (Experiment 4) alleviated this US preexposure effect suggesting that the loss of the US preexposure effect as the retention interval is lengthened observed in Experiment 2 is due to changes in the degree of blocking by contextual stimuli over time. The results are discussed in terms of differential susceptibility of forgetting of two functional roles played by a contextual stimuli in the current situation-context as a CS and context as a retrieval cue for other CS-US associations.     

Taste aversions conditioned by the aversiveness of insulin and formalin: role of CS specificity

Experimenters in the past have reported that when insulin is used as the unconditioned stimulus (US), rats will learn an aversion to a sodium chloride but not a sucrose solution, whereas with formalin as the US, they will learn an aversion to a sucrose but not a saline solution. The present experiments failed to confirm these findings. Aversions to sucrose were conditioned with insulin and aversions to sodium chloride were conditioned with formalin. The use of a more concentrated sucrose solution in the present study may have been responsible for the successful sucrose-aversion conditioning with insulin. Although the source of the discrepancy in findings concerning aversion conditioning with formalin remains unclear, experiments ruled out numerous possibilities. These experiments also showed that sodium chloride aversion conditioning with formalin is a highly robust phenomenon that occurs with a variety of conditioned stimulus durations and formalin doses, with distributed and massed training, in male and female rats, and even if saline is not the only novel solution presented during conditioning. Furthermore, the aversion can be detected with both single-stimulus and choice test procedures.