Cited by 311Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Bee foraging in uncertain environments using predictive hebbian learning

Montague, P. Read, Dayan, Peter, Person, Christophe, Sejnowski, Terrence J.·1995·Nature

Abstract

Recent work has identified a neuron with widespread projections to odour processing regions of the honeybee brain whose activity represents the reward value of gustatory stimuli. We have constructed a model of bee foraging in uncertain environments based on this type of neuron and a predictive form of hebbian synaptic plasticity. The model uses visual input from a simulated three-dimensional world and accounts for a wide range of experiments on bee learning during foraging, including risk aversion. The predictive model shows how neuromodulatory influences can be used to bias actions and control synaptic plasticity in a way that goes beyond standard correlational mechanisms. Although several behavioural models of conditioning in bees have been proposed, this model is based on the neural substrate and was tested in a simulation of bee flight.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/377725a0

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The perspective on optimum policies as prior expectations may call for a reappraisal of reinforcement learning as an explanation for behavior and the role of dopamine in coding unpredicted reward.

    “The perspective on optimum policies as prior expectations may call for a reappraisal of reinforcement learning as an explanation for behavior and, in particular, the role of dopamine in coding unpredicted reward (Montague et al. 1995;Schultz et al. 1997;Doya 2002)”

    From Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation (2010) · cites this paper as Montague et al. 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., Person, C., & Sejnowski, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Nature
Published
1995-10
Volume
377
Issue
6551
Pages
725-728
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2005866069
Cited by
311
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
honey bee foraging, risk aversion, neuromodulation, synaptic plasticity, visual navigation, insect learning
MeSH terms
Animals, Bees, Computer Simulation, Environment, Feeding Behavior, Learning, Models, Neurological, Neurons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review