Effects of group size on learning and memory in the honey bee, <i>Apis mellifera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In animals that experience interactions with conspecifics while young, social interactions appear to be a necessary prerequisite for typical behaviour. Eusocial insects have large colonies where individuals experience a great deal of social interactions with nest mates during all life stages, making them excellent candidates for understanding the effects of social isolation on brain development and behaviour. Here we used the honey bee Apis mellifera to study the effect of social isolation and group size on reward perception and discrimination learning and memory. We confined day old adult workers into three different size groups (1 bee, 8 or 32 bees) for six days during a critical period associated with adult behavioural maturation. We quantified their sucrose responsiveness, their ability to use and remember olfactory cues to discriminate between sucrose and salt (i.e. discrimination learning), and four biogenic amines in the brain. We found that the smaller the group size, the more responsive a worker was to the sucrose reward. Honey bees raised in groups of 32 performed the best in the learning trials and had the highest levels of dopamine. We found no effect of group size on memory. The observed group size effect on learning but not memory supports the hypothesis that social interactions modulate learning through the dopaminergic system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".