Different effects of reward value and saliency during bumblebee visual search for multiple rewarding targets.

Attention Bee Flower constancy Visual search

Journal

Animal cognition
ISSN: 1435-9456
Titre abrégé: Anim Cogn
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9814573

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Historique:
received: 16 09 2020
accepted: 13 01 2021
revised: 11 01 2021
pubmed: 31 1 2021
medline: 1 7 2021
entrez: 30 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Several animals, including bees, use visual search to distinguish targets of interest and ignore distractors. While bee flower choice is well studied, we know relatively little about how they choose between multiple rewarding flowers in complex floral environments. Two factors that could influence bee visual search for multiple flowers are the saliency (colour contrast against the background) and the reward value of flowers. We here investigated how these two different factors contribute to bee visual search. We trained bees to independently recognize two rewarding flower types that, in different experiments, differed in either saliency, reward value or both. We then measured their choices and attention to these flowers in the presence of distractors in a test without reinforcement. We found that bees preferred more salient or higher rewarding flowers and ignored distractors. When the high-reward flowers were less salient than the low-reward flowers, bees were nonetheless equally likely to choose high-reward flowers, for the reward and saliency values we used. Bees were also more likely to attend to these high-reward flowers, spending higher inspection times around them and exhibiting faster search times when choosing them. When flowers differed in reward, we also found an effect of the training order with low-reward targets being more likely to be chosen if they had been encountered during the more immediate training session prior to the test. Our results parallel recent findings from humans demonstrating that reward value can attract attention even when targets are less salient and irrelevant to the current task.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33515306
doi: 10.1007/s10071-021-01479-3
pii: 10.1007/s10071-021-01479-3
pmc: PMC8238720
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

803-814

Subventions

Organisme : H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
ID : PIIF-GA-2009-253593
Organisme : Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ID : EP/P006094/1
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/S009760/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27926
pubmed: 22132170
Anim Cogn. 2006 Oct;9(4):257-70
pubmed: 16909238
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e100752
pubmed: 24964082
Anim Behav. 1997 Sep;54(3):615-27
pubmed: 9299046
J Exp Biol. 2013 Nov 15;216(Pt 22):4154-60
pubmed: 23948481
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Jun;5(6):495-501
pubmed: 15152199
Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):823-5
pubmed: 17690299
Nature. 2002 Feb 7;415(6872):609-13
pubmed: 11832937
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Aug;16(8):437-43
pubmed: 22795563
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 21;108(25):10367-71
pubmed: 21646524
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Feb;63(2):272-85
pubmed: 11281102
Front Behav Neurosci. 2020 Aug 12;14:137
pubmed: 32903410
Nat Commun. 2015 Mar 10;6:6476
pubmed: 25753807
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004 Feb;190(2):105-14
pubmed: 14652688
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2007 May;193(5):485-94
pubmed: 17333207
Anim Cogn. 2012 Nov;15(6):1183-93
pubmed: 22837045
J Cogn Neurosci. 2020 Feb;32(2):283-300
pubmed: 31560272
Psychol Rev. 1980 May;87(3):272-300
pubmed: 7384344
Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2020 Sep 15;6:539-562
pubmed: 32320631
Naturwissenschaften. 2004 May;91(5):224-7
pubmed: 15146269
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Feb;79(2):415-428
pubmed: 27905069
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 07;7:43872
pubmed: 28266572
J Exp Biol. 2006 Mar;209(Pt 6):987-93
pubmed: 16513924
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Mar 27;98(7):3898-903
pubmed: 11259668
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Oct 11;284(1864):
pubmed: 28978727
Cogn Emot. 2017 Jan;31(1):109-118
pubmed: 26403682
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2014 Jun;200(6):449-61
pubmed: 24788332
Curr Opin Psychol. 2019 Oct;29:97-101
pubmed: 30711911
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Jul;80(5):1083-1095
pubmed: 29542094
J Vis. 2018 Jan 1;18(1):4
pubmed: 29322165
Curr Opin Psychol. 2019 Oct;29:27-33
pubmed: 30472540
J Vis. 2015;15(14):4
pubmed: 26448146
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jul 18;114(29):7577-7581
pubmed: 28673997
Cogn Psychol. 1982 Apr;14(2):247-79
pubmed: 7083803
Oecologia. 1993 May;94(2):244-246
pubmed: 28314038
F1000Res. 2014 Jul 28;3:174
pubmed: 25254109
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Sep 22;278(1719):2806-13
pubmed: 21288951
J Exp Biol. 2012 Jul 15;215(Pt 14):2515-23
pubmed: 22723491
Naturwissenschaften. 2004 May;91(5):228-31
pubmed: 15146270

Auteurs

Vivek Nityananda (V)

Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Framlington Place, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK. vivek.nityananda@newcastle.ac.uk.
School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, Mile End, London, E1 4NS, UK. vivek.nityananda@newcastle.ac.uk.

Lars Chittka (L)

School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, Mile End, London, E1 4NS, UK.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH