Temporal Determinants of Olfactory Long-Term Retention in Honeybee Classical Conditioning: Nonmonotonous Effects of the Training Trial Interval

The question of which acquisition parameters govern long-term retention is important to an understanding of memory function. We investigate the effects of the time interval between learning trials on mediate (1 day)- and long-term (4 days) retention. In classical conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex, we train honeybees to associate an odorant with a sucrose reward using intertrial intervals of either 30 s, 1 min, 3 min, or 20 min. Intervals of 20 and 1 min result in stable retention but 3-min and 30-s intervals result in reduced retention after 4 days compared to that seen after 1 day. Thus, stability of long-term retention depends nonmonotonously on the intertrial interval. Reduced retention with 3-min intervals might be caused by a disruption of memory consolidation which is known to be especially sensitive to interference 3 min after a conditioning trial. Habituation and backward inhibitory learning are discussed as explanations for reduced retention with 30-s intervals.

[1]  M. Hammer,et al.  Backward inhibitory learning in honeybees: a behavioral analysis of reinforcement processing. , 1998, Learning & memory.

[2]  R. Menzel,et al.  Odorant intensity as a determinant for olfactory conditioning in honeybees: roles in discrimination, overshadowing and memory consolidation. , 1997, The Journal of experimental biology.

[3]  R. Menzel,et al.  Honey bees transfer olfactory memories established during flower visits to a proboscis extension paradigm in the laboratory , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  U. Müller,et al.  Inhibition of Nitric Oxide Synthase Impairs a Distinct Form of Long-Term Memory in the Honeybee, Apis mellifera , 1996, Neuron.

[5]  T. Carew,et al.  Molecular Enhancement of Memory Formation , 1996, Neuron.

[6]  R. Menzel,et al.  Learning and memory in honeybees: from behavior to neural substrates. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[7]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Trial spacing effects in pavlovian conditioning: A role for local context , 1995 .

[8]  J C Sandoz,et al.  Olfactory learning and memory in the honeybee: comparison of different classical conditioning procedures of the proboscis extension response. , 1995, Comptes rendus de l'Academie des sciences. Serie III, Sciences de la vie.

[9]  M. Hammer,et al.  Learning and memory in the honeybee. , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[10]  R. Menzel,et al.  Inhibition of brain protein synthesis by cycloheximide does not affect formation of long-term memory in honeybees after olfactory conditioning , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[11]  M. Hammer,et al.  Functional Organization of Appetitive Learning and Memory in a Generalist Pollinator, the Honey Bee , 1993 .

[12]  G. Bicker,et al.  Habituation of an appetitive reflex in the honeybee. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  B. Smith The Olfactory Memory of the Honeybee Apis Mellifera: I. Odorant Modulation of Short- and Intermediate-Term Memory After Single-Trial Conditioning , 1991 .

[14]  D. Olton,et al.  Neurobiology of Comparative Cognition , 1990 .

[15]  A. R. Wagner,et al.  Distribution-of-Trials Effects in Pavlovian Conditioning: An Apparent Involvement of Inhibitory Backward Conditioning With Short Intertrial Intervals , 1985 .

[16]  M. Bitterman,et al.  Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). , 1983, Journal of comparative psychology.

[17]  Randolf Menzel,et al.  Behavioural access to short-term memory in bees , 1979, Nature.

[18]  R. L. Solso Theories in cognitive psychology : the Loyola symposium , 1975 .

[19]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. , 1974 .

[20]  L. Kamin,et al.  The retention of an incompletely learned avoidance response. , 1957, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.