Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39909894›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2025

How bumblebees manage conflicting information seen on arrival and departure from flowers.

Marie-Geneviève Guiraud, HaDi MaBouDi, Joe Woodgate, Olivia K Bates, Oscar Ramos Rodriguez, Vince Gallo, Andrew B Barron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Marie-Geneviève GuiraudSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK. marie-genevieve.guiraud@mq.edu.au.
HaDi MaBouDiSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK.
Joe WoodgateSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK.
Olivia K BatesSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK.
Oscar Ramos RodriguezSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK.
Vince GalloSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, UK.
Andrew B BarronSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

ARC Discovery Projects DP230100006Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/P006094/1Human Frontier Science Program RGP0022/2014Templeton World Charity Foundation Project TWCF-2020-20539
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bees are flexible and adaptive learners, capable of learning stimuli seen on arrival and at departure from flowers where they have fed. This gives bees the potential to learn all information associated with a feeding event, but it also presents the challenge of managing information that is irrelevant, inconsistent, or conflicting. Here, we examined how presenting bumblebees with conflicting visual information before and after feeding influenced their learning rate and what they learned. Bees were trained to feeder stations mounted in front of a computer monitor. Visual stimuli were displayed behind each feeder station on the monitor. Positively reinforced stimuli (CS +) marked feeders offering sucrose solution. Negatively reinforced stimuli (CS-) marked feeders offering quinine solution. While alighted at the feeder station the stimuli were likely not visible to the bee. The "constant stimulus" training group saw the same stimulus throughout. For the "switched stimulus" training group, the CS + changed to the CS- during feeding. Learning was slower in the "switched stimulus" training group compared to the constant stimulus" group, but the training groups did not differ in their learning performance or the extent to which they generalised their learning. The information conflict in the "switched stimulus" group did not interfere with what had been learned. Differences between the "switched" and "constant stimulus" groups were greater for bees trained on a horizontal CS + than a vertical CS + suggesting bees differ in their processing of vertically and horizontally oriented stimuli. We discuss how bumblebees might resolve this type of information conflict so effectively, drawing on the known neurobiology of their visual learning system.

Indexed as

Visual PerceptionAnimalsBeesFeeding BehaviorFlowersLearningPhotic StimulationReinforcement, PsychologyActive visionBombus terrestrisCognitive visual engramInsect cognitionVisual learning

Identifiers

PMID39909894
PMCPMC11799123

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.