@article{ZilligPauliWieseretal.2023,
  author    = {Zillig, Anna-Lena and Pauli, Paul and Wieser, Matthias and Reicherts, Philipp},
  title     = {Better safe than sorry? - On the influence of learned safety on pain perception},
  series = {PloS One},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {PloS One},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0289047},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-349905},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The experience of threat was found to result—mostly—in increased pain, however it is still unclear whether the exact opposite, namely the feeling of safety may lead to a reduction of pain. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two between-subject experiments (N = 94; N = 87), investigating whether learned safety relative to a neutral control condition can reduce pain, while threat should lead to increased pain compared to a neutral condition. Therefore, participants first underwent either threat or safety conditioning, before entering an identical test phase, where the previously conditioned threat or safety cue and a newly introduced visual cue were presented simultaneously with heat pain stimuli. Methodological changes were performed in experiment 2 to prevent safety extinction and to facilitate conditioning in the first place: We included additional verbal instructions, increased the maximum length of the ISI and raised CS-US contingency in the threat group from 50\% to 75\%. In addition to pain ratings and ratings of the visual cues (threat, safety, arousal, valence, and contingency), in both experiments, we collected heart rate and skin conductance. Analysis of the cue ratings during acquisition indicate successful threat and safety induction, however results of the test phase, when also heat pain was administered, demonstrate rapid safety extinction in both experiments. Results suggest rather small modulation of subjective and physiological pain responses following threat or safety cues relative to the neutral condition. However, exploratory analysis revealed reduced pain ratings in later trials of the experiment in the safety group compared to the threat group in both studies, suggesting different temporal dynamics for threat and safety learning and extinction, respectively. Perspective: The present results demonstrate the challenge to maintain safety in the presence of acute pain and suggest more research on the interaction of affective learning mechanism and pain processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RuedenauerWoehrleSpaetheetal.2018,
  author    = {Ruedenauer, Fabian A. and W{\"o}hrle, Christine and Spaethe, Johannes and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) differentiate between different pollen types?},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0205821},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177537},
  pages     = {e0205821},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bees receive nectar and pollen as reward for pollinating plants. Pollen of different plant species varies widely in nutritional composition. In order to select pollen of appropriate nutritional quality, bees would benefit if they could distinguish different pollen types. Whether they rely on visual, olfactory and/or chemotactile cues to distinguish between different pollen types, has however been little studied. In this study, we examined whether and how Apis mellifera workers differentiate between almond and apple pollen. We used differential proboscis extension response conditioning with olfactory and chemotactile stimulation, in light and darkness, and in summer and winter bees. We found that honeybees were only able to differentiate between different pollen types, when they could use both chemotactile and olfactory cues. Visual cues further improved learning performance. Summer bees learned faster than winter bees. Our results thus highlight the importance of multisensory information for pollen discrimination.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KoenigWolfHeisenberg2016,
  author    = {Koenig, Sebastian and Wolf, Reinhard and Heisenberg, Martin},
  title     = {Visual Attention in Flies-Dopamine in the Mushroom Bodies Mediates the After-Effect of Cueing},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0161412},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-179564},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Visual environments may simultaneously comprise stimuli of different significance. Often such stimuli require incompatible responses. Selective visual attention allows an animal to respond exclusively to the stimuli at a certain location in the visual field. In the process of establishing its focus of attention the animal can be influenced by external cues. Here we characterize the behavioral properties and neural mechanism of cueing in the fly Drosophila melanogaster. A cue can be attractive, repulsive or ineffective depending upon (e.g.) its visual properties and location in the visual field. Dopamine signaling in the brain is required to maintain the effect of cueing once the cue has disappeared. Raising or lowering dopamine at the synapse abolishes this after-effect. Specifically, dopamine is necessary and sufficient in the αβ-lobes of the mushroom bodies. Evidence is provided for an involvement of the αβ\(_{posterior}\) Kenyon cells.},
  language  = {en}
}