Rosalyn Gloag

Detlef Weigel

eLife assessment
This study provides valuable new insights into insect cognition and problem-solving in bumblebees. The authors present convincing evidence that bumblebees lack causal understanding in a string-pulling task, although evidence that bumblebees instead use image-matching for this task, which would benefit from further experiments, is currently incomplete.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this paper, the researchers aimed to address whether bees causally understand string-pulling through a series of experiments. I first briefly summarize what they did:
- In experiment 1, the researchers trained bees without string and then presented them with flowers in the test phase that either had connected or disconnected strings, to determine what their preference was without any training. Bees did not show any preference.
- In experiment 2, bees were trained to have experience with string and then tested on their choice between connected vs. disconnected string.
- experiment 3 was similar except that instead of having one option which was an attached string broken in the middle, the string was completely disconnected from the flower.
- In experiment 4, bees were trained on green strings and tested on white strings to determine if they generalize across color.
- In experiment 5, bees were trained on blue strings and tested on white strings.
- In experiment 6, bees were trained where black tape covered the area between the string and the flower (i.e. so they would not be able to see/ learn whether it was connected or disconnected).
- In experiments 2-6, bees chose the connected string in the test phase.
- In experiment 7, bees were trained as in experiment 3 and then tested where the string was either disconnected or coiled i.e. still being 'functional' but appearing different.
- In experiment 8, bees were trained as before and then tested on a string that was in a different coiled orientation, either connected or disconnected.
- In experiments 7 and 8 the bees showed no preference.
Strengths:
I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this study and think it contains a nice, thorough set of experiments. I enjoyed reading the paper and felt that overall it was well-written and clear. I think experiment 1 shows that bees do not have an untrained understanding of the function of the string in this context. The rest of the experiments indicate that with training, bees have a preference for unbroken over broken string and likely use visual cues learned during training to make this choice. They also show that as in other contexts, bees readily generalize across different colors.
Weaknesses:
(1) I think there are 2 key pieces of information that can be taken from the test phase - the bees' first choice and then their behavior across the whole test. I think the first choice is critical in terms of what the bee has learned from the training phase - then their behavior from this point is informed by the feedback they obtain during the test phase. I think both pieces of information are worth considering, but their behavior across the entire test phase is giving different information than their first choice, and this distinction could be made more explicit.
In addition, while the bees' first choice is reported, no statistics are presented for their preferences.
(2) It seemed to me that the bees might not only be using visual feedback but also motor feedback. This would not explain their behavior in the first test choice, but could explain some of their subsequent behavior. For example, bees might learn during training that there is some friction/weight associated with pulling the string, but in cases where the string is separated from the flower, this would presumably feel different to the bee in terms of the physical feedback it is receiving. I'd be interested to see some of these test videos (perhaps these could be shared as supplementary material, in addition to the training videos already uploaded), to see what the bees' behavior looks like after they attempt to pull a disconnected string.
(3) I think the statistics section needs to be made clearer (more in private comments).
(4) I think the paper would be made stronger by considering the natural context in which the bee performs this behavior. Bees manipulate flowers in all kinds of contexts and scrabble with their legs to achieve nectar rewards. Rather than thinking that it is pulling a string, my guess would be that the bee learns that a particular motor pattern within their usual foraging repertoire (scrabbling with legs), leads to a reward. I don't think this makes the behavior any less interesting - in fact, I think considering the behavior through an ecological lens can help make better sense of it.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
The authors wanted to see if bumblebees could succeed in the string-pulling paradigm with broken strings. They found that bumblebees can learn to pull strings and that they have a preference to pull on intact strings vs broken ones. The authors conclude that bumblebees use image matching to complete the string-pulling task.
Strengths:
The study has an excellent experimental design and contributes to our understanding of what information bumblebees use to solve a string-pulling task.
Weaknesses:
Overall, I think the manuscript is good, but it is missing some context. Why do bumblebees rely on image matching rather than causal reasoning? Could it have something to do with their ecology? And how is the task relevant for bumblebees in the wild? Does the test translate to any real-life situations? Is pulling a natural behaviour that bees do? Does image matching have adaptive significance?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
This paper presents bees with varying levels of experience with a choice task where bees have to choose to pull either a connected or unconnected string, each attached to a yellow flower containing sugar water. Bees without experience of string pulling did not choose the connected string above chance (experiment 1), but with experience of horizontal string pulling (as in the right-hand panel of Figure 4) bees did choose the connected string above chance (experiments 2-3), even when the string colour changed between training and test (experiments 4-5). Bees that were not provided with perceptual-motor feedback (i.e they could not observe that each pull of the string moved the flower) during training still learned to string pull and then chose the connected string option above chance (experiment 6). Bees with normal experience of string pulling then failed to discriminate between connected and unconnected strings when the strings were coiled or looped, rather than presented straight (experiments 7-8).
Weaknesses:
The authors have only provided video of some of the conditions where the bees succeeded. In general, I think a video explaining each condition and then showing a clip of a typical performance would make it much easier to follow the study designs for scholars. Videos of the conditions bees failed at would be highly useful in order to compare different hypotheses for how the bees are solving this problem. I also think it is highly important to code the videos for switching behaviours. When solving the connected vs unconnected string tasks, when bees were observed pulling the unconnected string, did they quickly switch to the other string? Or did they continue to pull the wrong string? This would help discriminate the use of perceptual-motor feedback from other hypotheses.
The experiments are also not described well, for my below comments I have assumed that different groups of bees were tested for experiments 1-8, and that experiment 6 was run as described in line 331, where bees were given string-pulling training without perceptual feedback rather than how it is described in Figure 4B, which describes bees as receiving string pulling training with feedback.
The authors suggest the bees' performance is best explained by what they term 'image matching'. However, experiment 6 does not seem to support this without assuming retroactive image matching after the problem is solved. The logic of experiment 6 is described as "This was to ensure that the bees could not see the familiar "lollipop shape" while pulling strings....If the bees prefer to pull the connected strings, this would indicate that bees memorize the arrangement of strings-connected flowers in this task." I disagree with this second sentence, removing perceptual feedback during training would prevent bees memorising the lollipop shape, because, while solving the task, they don't actually see a string connected to a yellow flower, due to the black barrier. At the end of the task, the string is now behind the bee, so unless the bee is turning around and encoding this object retrospectively as the image to match, it seems hard to imagine how the bee learns the lollipop shape.
Despite this, the authors go on to describe image matching as one of their main findings. For this claim, I would suggest the authors run another experiment, identical to experiment 6 but with a black panel behind the bee, such that the string the bee pulls behind itself disappears from view. There is now no image to match at any point from the bee's perspective so it should now fail the connectivity task.
Strengths:
Despite these issues, this is a fascinating dataset. Experiments 1 and 2 show that the bees are not learning to discriminate between connected and unconnected stimuli rapidly in the first trials of the test. Instead, it is clear that experience in string pulling is needed to discriminate between connected and unconnected strings. What aspect of this experience is important? Experiment 6 suggests it is not image matching (when no image is provided during problem-solving, but only afterward, bees still attend to string connectivity) and casts doubt on perceptual-motor feedback (unless from the bee's perspective, they do actually get feedback that pulling the string moves the flower, video is needed here). Experiments 7 and 8 rule out means-end understanding because if the bees are capable of imagining the effect of their actions on the string and then planning out their actions (as hypotheses such as insight, means-end understanding and string connectivity suggest), they should solve these tasks.
If the authors can compare the bees' performance in a more detailed way to other species, and run the experiment suggested, this will be a highly exciting paper

Does bumblebee preference of continuous over interrupted strings in string-pulling tasks indicate means-end comprehension?

Figures and data

Be the first to read new articles from eLife