ArticlePloS one2024
Stimulus intensity and temporal configuration interact during bimodal learning and memory in honey bees.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multimodal integration is a core neural process with a keen relevance during ecological tasks requiring learning and memory, such as foraging. The benefits of learning multimodal signals imply solving whether the components come from a single event. This challenge presumably depends on the timing and intensity of the stimuli. Here, we used simultaneous and alternate presentations of olfactory and visual stimuli, at low and high intensities, to understand how temporal and intensity variations affect the learning of a bimodal stimulus and its components. We relied on the conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) to train honey bees to an appetitive learning task with bimodal stimuli precisely controlled. We trained bees to stimuli with different synchronicity and intensity levels. We found that synchronicity, order of presentation, and intensity significantly impacted the probability of exhibiting conditioned PER responses and the latency of the conditioned responses. At low intensities, synchronous bimodal inputs produced maximal multisensory enhancement, while asynchronous temporal orders led to lower performances. At high intensities, the relative advantage of the synchronous stimulation diminished, and asynchronous stimuli produced similar performances. Memory retention was higher for the olfactory component and bimodal stimuli compared to the visual component, irrespective of the training's temporal configuration. Bees retained the asynchronous bimodal configuration to a lesser extent than the synchronous one, depending on the stimulus intensity. We conclude that time (synchrony), order of presentation, and intensity have interdependent effects on bee learning and memory performance. This suggests caution when assessing the independent effects of each factor.
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.