Search for: All records

When animals learn the association of a conditioned stimulus (CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US), later presentation of the CS invokes a representation of the US. When the expected US fails to occur, theoretical accounts predict that conditioned inhibition can accrue to any other stimuli that are associated with this change in the US. Empirical work with mammals has confirmed the existence of conditioned inhibition. But the way it is manifested, the conditions that produce it, and determining whether it is the opposite of excitatory conditioning are important considerations. Invertebrates can make valuable contributions to this literature because of the well-established conditioning protocols and access to the central nervous system (CNS) for studying neural underpinnings of behavior. Nevertheless, although conditioned inhibition has been reported, it has yet to be thoroughly investigated in invertebrates. Here, we evaluate the role of the US in producing conditioned inhibition by using proboscis extension response conditioning of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Specifically, using variations of a “feature-negative” experimental design, we use downshifts in US intensity relative to US intensity used during initial excitatory conditioning to show that an odorant in an odor–odor mixture can become a conditioned inhibitor. We argue that some alternative interpretations to conditioned inhibition are unlikely. However, we show variation across individuals in how strongly they show conditioned inhibition, with some individuals possibly revealing a different means of learning about changes in reinforcement. We discuss how the resolution of these differences is needed to fully understand whether and how conditioned inhibition is manifested in the honeybee, and whether it can be extended to investigate how it is encoded in the CNS. It is also important for extension to other insect models. In particular, work like this will be important as more is revealed of the complexity of the insect brain from connectome projects. 

Animals use odors in many natural contexts, for example, for finding mates or food, or signaling danger. Most analyses of natural odors search for either the most meaningful components of a natural odor mixture, or they use linear metrics to analyze the mixture compositions. However, we have recently shown that the physical space for complex mixtures is ‘hyperbolic’, meaning that there are certain combinations of variables that have a disproportionately large impact on perception and that these variables have specific interpretations in terms of metabolic processes taking place inside the flower and fruit that produce the odors. Here we show that the statistics of odorants and odorant mixtures produced by inflorescences ( Brassica rapa ) are also better described with a hyperbolic rather than a linear metric, and that combinations of odorants in the hyperbolic space are better predictors of the nectar and pollen resources sought by bee pollinators than the standard Euclidian combinations. We also show that honey bee and bumble bee antennae can detect most components of the B . rapa odor space that we tested, and the strength of responses correlates with positions of odorants in the hyperbolic space. In sum, a hyperbolic representation can be used to guide investigation of how information is represented at different levels of processing in the CNS. 

Animals are constantly bombarded with stimuli, which presents a fundamental problem of sorting among pervasive uninformative stimuli and novel, possibly meaningful stimuli. We evaluated novelty detection behaviorally in honey bees as they position their antennae differentially in an air stream carrying familiar or novel odors. We then characterized neuronal responses to familiar and novel odors in the first synaptic integration center in the brain–the antennal lobes. We found that the neurons that exhibited stronger initial responses to the odor that was to be familiarized are the same units that later distinguish familiar and novel odors, independently of chemical identities. These units, including both tentative projection neurons and local neurons, showed a decreased response to the familiar odor but an increased response to the novel odor. Our results suggest that the antennal lobe may represent familiarity or novelty to an odor stimulus in addition to its chemical identity code. Therefore, the mechanisms for novelty detection may be present in early sensory processing, either as a result of local synaptic interaction or via feedback from higher brain centers. 

This Perspective highlights the shift from the classic picture of olfaction as slow and static to a view in which dynamics play a critical role at many levels of sensing and behavior. Olfaction is now increasingly seen as a “wide-bandwidth temporal sense” (Ackels et al., 2021; Nagel et al., 2015). A parallel transition is occurring in odor-guided robot navigation, where it has been discovered that sensors can access temporal cues useful for navigation (Schmuker et al., 2016). We are only beginning to understand the implications of this paradigm-shift on our view of olfactory and olfacto-motor circuits. Below we review insights into the information encoded in turbulent odor plumes and shine light on how animals could access this information. We suggest that a key challenge for olfactory neuroscience is to re-interpret work based on static stimuli in the context of natural odor dynamics and actively exploring animals.