Search

Animals and humans have multiple memory systems. While both black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) are under selective pressure to remember reliable long-term spatial locations (habit memory), chickadees must additionally quickly form and rapidly update spatial memory for unique cache sites (one-trial memory). We conducted a series of three experiments in which we assessed the degree to which habit and one-trial memory were expressed in both species as a function of training context. In Experiment 1, birds failed to demonstrate habits on probe trials after being trained in the context of a biased Match-to-Sample task in which the same high-frequency target was always correct. In Experiment 2, habit strongly controlled performance when habits were learned as Discriminations, defining a specific training context. In Experiment 3, context no longer defined when to express habits and habit and one-trial memory competed for control of behavior. Across all experiments, birds preferentially used the memory system at test that was consistent with the context in which it was acquired. Although the memory adaptations that allow chickadees to successfully recover cached food might predispose them to favor one-trial memory, we found no species differences in the weighting of habit and one-trial memory. In the experiments here, context was a powerful factor controlling the interaction of memory systems.

Bee pollination is economically and ecologically vital and recent declines in bee populations are therefore a concern. One possible cause of bee declines is pesticide use. Bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, have been shown to be less efficient foragers and collect less pollen on foraging trips than unexposed bees. We investigated whether bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) chronically exposed to imidacloprid at field-realistic levels of 2.6 and 10 ppb showed learning deficits that could affect foraging. Bumblebees were tested for their ability to associate flower colour with reward value in a simulated foraging environment. Bumblebees completed 10 foraging trips in which they collected sucrose solution from artificial flowers that varied in sucrose concentration. The reward quality of each artificial flower was predicted by corolla colour. Unexposed bumblebees acquired a preference for feeding on the most rewarding flower colour on the second foraging trip, while bumblebees exposed at 2.6 and 10 ppb did not until their third and fifth trip, respectively. The delay in preference acquisition in exposed bumblebees may be due to reduced flower sampling and shorter foraging trips. These results show that bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid are slow to learn the reward value of flowers and this may explain previously observed foraging inefficiencies associated with pesticide exposure.

The win-shift versus win-stay distinction supposes that foraging animals use one of two movement rules when searching for food: win-stay to return to locations where they previously found food and win-shift to avoid locations where they previously found food. Win-shift and win-stay rules describe, for example, the behaviour of rats foraging in a radial arm maze, the behaviour of animals in delayed matching and nonmatching to sample tasks, and the behaviour of nectarivorous birds feeding on depleting and replenishing nectar sources. The present study investigated whether black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus , searching for food use win-shift and win-stay rules in response to different reward contingencies. Chickadees first searched multiple spatially dispersed sites for food hidden randomly in these sites, then after several minutes returned to find these sites replenished in the win-stay condition, or empty and other sites baited in the win-shift condition. Birds performed no better than chance at returning to baited sites in the win-stay condition or avoiding previously baited sites in the win-shift condition. Instead, chickadees used preferred search patterns regardless of the win-shift or win-stay contingencies they experienced. Search sequences, however, showed greater stereotypy under win-stay than under win-shift conditions even though the locations of baited sites were determined randomly. Chickadees are year-round residents in relatively small home ranges and may forage using well-established movement rules that, in our experiments, led to neither win-stay nor win-shift behaviour. The stereotypy of search does, however, appear to be influenced by win-stay and win-shift foraging outcomes.

The interaction between working and reference memory systems was examined under conditions in which salient contextual cues were presented during memory retrieval. Ambient colored lights (red or green) bathed the operant chamber during the presentation of comparison stimuli in delayed matching-to-sample training (working memory) and during the presentation of the comparison stimuli as S+ and S- cues in discrimination training (reference memory). Strong competition between memory systems appeared when the same contextual cue appeared during working and reference memory training. When different contextual cues were used, however, working memory was completely protected from reference memory interference.

Pigeons' performance on a working memory task, symbolic delayed matching-to-sample, was used to examine the interaction between working memory and reference memory. Reference memory was established by training pigeons to discriminate between the comparison cues used in delayed matching as S+ and S- stimuli. Delayed matching retention tests then measured accuracy when working and reference memory were congruent and incongruent. In 4 experiments, it was shown that the interaction between working and reference memory is reciprocal: Strengthening either type of memory leads to a decrease in the influence of the other type of memory. A process dissociation procedure analysis of the data from Experiment 4 showed independence of working and reference memory, and a model of working memory and reference memory interaction was shown to predict the findings reported in the 4 experiments. (PsycINFO Database Record

Bumblebees are capable of rapidly learning discriminations, but flexibility in bumblebee learning is less well understood. We tested bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) on a serial reversal learning task. A serial reversal task requires learning of an initial discrimination between two differentially rewarded stimuli, followed by multiple reversals of the reward contingency between stimuli. A reduction in errors with repeated reversals in a serial reversal task is an indicator of behavioural flexibility. Bees were housed in a large indoor environment and tested during foraging flights. Testing free-flying bees allowed for large numbers of trials and reversals. All bees were trained to perform a simultaneous discrimination between two colours for a nectar reward, followed by nine reversals of this discrimination. Results showed that bumblebees reduced errors and improved their performance across successive reversals. A reduction in perseverative errors was the major cause of the improvement in performance. Bees showed a slight increase in error rate in their final trials, perhaps as a consequence of increasing proactive interference, but proactive interference may also have contributed to the overall improvement in performance across reversals. Bumblebees are thus capable of behavioural flexibility comparable to that of other animals and may use proactive interference as a mechanism of behavioural flexibility in varying environments.

Bumblebees and honeybees have been the subjects of a great deal of recent research in animal cognition. Many of the major topics in cognition, including memory, attention, concept learning, numerosity, spatial cognition, timing, social learning, and metacognition have been examined in bumblebees, honeybees, or both. Although bumblebees and honeybees are very closely related, they also differ in important ways, including social organization, development, and foraging behaviour. We examine whether differences between bumblebees and honeybees in cognitive processes are related to differences in their natural history and behaviour. There are differences in some cognitive traits, such as serial reversal learning and matching-to-sample, that appear related to differences between bumblebees and honeybees in foraging and social behaviour. Other cognitive processes, such as numerosity, appear to be very similar. Despite the wealth of information that is available on some aspects of bumblebee and honeybee cognition and behaviour, there are relatively few instances, however, in which adequate data exist to make direct comparisons. We highlight a number of phenomena, including concept learning, spatial cognition, timing, and metacognition, for which targeted comparative research may reveal unexpected adaptive variation in cognitive processes in these complex animals. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: In Honor of Jerry Hogan.