ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020
Honeybees solve a multi-comparison ranking task by probability matching.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- A Markovian dynamics forProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Through an animal's eye: the implications of diverse sensory systems in scientific experimentation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Review
- How honey bees make fast and accurate decisions.eLife · 2023Article
- Switching costs in stochastic environments drive the emergence of matching behaviour in animal decision-making through the promotion of reward learning strategies.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Honeybees forage on diverse flowers which vary in the amount and type of rewards they offer, and bees are challenged with maximizing the resources they gather for their colony. That bees are effective foragers is clear, but how bees solve this type of complex multi-choice task is unknown. Here, we set bees a five-comparison choice task in which five colours differed in their probability of offering reward and punishment. The colours were ranked such that high ranked colours were more likely to offer reward, and the ranking was unambiguous. Bees' choices in unrewarded tests matched their individual experiences of reward and punishment of each colour, indicating bees solved this test not by comparing or ranking colours but by basing their colour choices on their history of reinforcement for each colour. Computational modelling suggests a structure like the honeybee mushroom body with reinforcement-related plasticity at both input and output can be sufficient for this cognitive strategy. We discuss how probability matching enables effective choices to be made without a need to compare any stimuli directly, and the use and limitations of this simple cognitive strategy for foraging animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.