Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33515306›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2021

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

Vivek Nityananda, Lars Chittka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The effect of target scarcity on visual foraging.Royal Society open science · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Learning modifies attention during bumblebee visual search.Behavioral ecology and sociobiology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vivek NityanandaBiosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Framlington Place, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK. vivek.nityananda@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2878-2425
Lars ChittkaSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, Mile End, London, E1 4NS, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S009760/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/P006094/1H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions PIIF-GA-2009-253593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

FlowersRewardAnimalsBeesReinforcement, PsychologyAttentionBeeFlower constancyVisual search

Identifiers

PMID33515306
PMCPMC8238720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.