ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
The constructive nature of memories in insects: bumblebees as a case study.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Update on "Emotion and autobiographical memory": 14 years of advances in understanding functions, constructions, and consequences.Physics of life reviews · 2024Review
- The constructive nature of memories in insects: bumblebees as a case study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The view that human memory is constructive implies that recollections are not necessarily an accurate reproduction of past events. An approach to study this constructive nature of memory is by examining memory errors. In this regard, conjunction errors-i.e. incorrect recollection of new stimuli integrated by components from two previously studied stimuli-have attracted important attention in human memory research. Do animals other than humans make conjunction errors? To investigate this issue, a choice task in which training was not involved was used. Bees experienced two to-be-remembered stimuli. At the test, they were presented with four stimuli: one of the original items (i.e. old), an item made by combining two features of the original items (i.e. conjunction), an item containing a previously presented feature and a new one (i.e. feature), and an item integrated solely by new features (i.e. new). Bumblebees remembered the old items. Importantly, when making memory errors, bumblebees selected conjunction and feature lures more often than new items. These results indicate that bumblebees, like humans, spontaneously make memory conjunction errors and suggest that invertebrates' memories might also be constructive in nature. I suggest that focusing on memory errors is a solid avenue to investigate episodic (like) memory in animals.This article is part of the theme issue 'Elements of episodic memory: lessons from 40 years of research'.
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.