Table A2.
The day–maze model yielded the smallest AIC.
| Models | AIC | Estimated coefficients of variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β0 (Intercept) | β1 (Day) | β2 (Maze) | β3 (Cage) | |||
| 1 | [β0, β1, β2] | 4834 | 0.85135 | −0.05698 | −0.83931 | – |
| 2 | [β0, β1, β2, β3] | 4835 | 0.89544 | −0.05698 | −0.83924 | (−0.08825) |
| 3 | [β0, β2] | 4839 | 0.85106 | – | −0.83970 | – |
| 4 | [β0, β2, β3] | 4840 | 0.89519 | – | −0.83963 | (−0.08833) |
| 5 | [β0, β1] | 4862 | 0.43171 | −0.05700 | – | – |
| 6 | [β0, β1, β3] | 4864 | 0.47585 | −0.05698 | – | (−0.08837) |
| 7 | [β0] | 4867 | 0.4311 | – | – | – |
| 8 | [β0, β3] | 4869 | 0.47541 | – | – | (−0.08846) |
AICs for synchrony index (Experiment 1). AICs and estimated coefficients of variables were calculated for 8 models designed for synchrony index (proportion of the number of video flames in which chicks were in the same end of the maze) in Experiment 1. The model [β0, β1, β2] indicates that both day and maze had significant effects, whereas the second-smallest-AIC model [β0, β1, β2, β3] indicates that cage was not reliable for its coefficient.
Single foraging in the maze: X = 0.01204 + (−0.05698 + ris) × day + rii.
Paired foraging in the maze: X = 0.85135 + (−0.05698 + ris) × day + rii.