Back

Effects of Bimodal Olfactory and Mechanosensory Inputs in the Antennal Lobe of the Honeybee Apis mellifera

Mahoney, S.; Joshi, S.; Smith, B.; Patel, M.; Lei, H.

2026-04-12 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.08.717065 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Animals often aggregate information from multiple different sensory modalities to accurately assess and react to a stimulus. It is often assumed that cross-modality integration mostly occurs at high-level processing centers, such as the mammalian cortex or insect mushroom bodies. However, we hypothesized that integration could occur relatively early in the sensory pathways. The insect antennal lobe is one such location, receiving direct inputs from the antennae via the antennal nerve. These inputs are highly multimodal, including olfactory, mechanosesnory, and gustatory information, all of which are relevant to foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera). Here we assess integration by recording electrophysiological spike data within the honeybee antennal lobe while exposing the bee to various combinations of wind speed and odor concentration. This paper accompanies another publication by Joseph Reed and Mainak Patel approaching the same question from a modelling perspective, where their model corroborates our data and vice versa. Together, we show that integration occurs within this early layer of processing, while also demonstrating the complex relationship of these two closely-linked stimuli. SIGNIFICANCEAccurate perception depends on the brains ability to combine information from multiple senses, commonly thought belonging to high level of information processing. Using the European honeybee, Apis mellifera, we show strong evidence that olfactory and mechanosensory signals interact at an early stage of neural processing, within the antennal lobe, producing stimulus representations closely-linked to the animals navigation and decision-making. By identifying a tractable model for early multisensory processing, this work offers broader insight into how animals construct reliable representations of their environment.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 1%
18.5%
2
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 1%
10.4%
3
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.3%
4
Journal of Comparative Neurology
66 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
7
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 23%
3.2%
9
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.6%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.1%
11
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
12
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
16
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
23
Integrative And Comparative Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
Journal of Comparative Physiology A
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
25
Hippocampus
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
28
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.6%