Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40252107›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2025

Cognition from genes to ecology: individual differences incognition and its potential role in a social network.

Brian H Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Brian H SmithArizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA. brian.h.smith@asu.edu.

Funding

Multiscale model of exploration-exploitation tradeoff: from genes to collectivesR01GM113967 · NIGMS · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI SMITH, BRIAN H. · 2015 to 2018
$1.9M
National Institutes of Health NIGMS GM113967NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM113967US Department of Energy SC0021922US National Science Foundation CRCNS 2113179
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have now been many reports of intra-colony differences in how individuals learn on a variety of conditioning tasks in both honey bees and bumble bees. Yet the fundamental mechanistic and adaptive bases for this variation have yet to be fully described. This review summarizes a long series of investigations with the honey bee (Apis mellifera) that had the objective of describing the factors that contribute to this variation. Selection on haploid drones for extremes in learning performance revealed that genotype accounted for much of the variance. Neither age nor behavioral caste consistently accounted for observed variation on different conditioning protocols until genotype was controlled. Two subsequent Quantitative Trait Locus mapping studies identified a locus in the honey bee genome with a significant effect on the learning phenotype. Pharmacological and reverse genetic approaches, combined with neurophysiological analyses, confirmed that a biogenic amine receptor for tyramine affects expression of the trait. This work allowed for development of a hypothetical model of how that receptor functions in the brain to produce broad pleiotropic effects on behavior. Subsequent work used genotype as a treatment condition for evaluation of the variation under quasi-natural conditions, which revealed that individual variation reflects how foragers weigh known and novel resources in decision making. This work, together with other studies of individual differences, suggests a unifying framework for understanding how and why individuals differ in cognitive abilities.

Indexed as

CognitionIndividualityAnimalsBeesGenotypeLearningQuantitative Trait LociSocial BehaviorGenotypeHoney beeIndividual differencesLearningSocial network

Identifiers

PMID40252107
PMCPMC12009236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.