Table A3.
The day–maze model yielded the smallest AIC.
| Models | AIC | Estimated coefficients of variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| γ0 (Intercept) | γ1 (Day) | γ2 (Maze) | γ3 (Feeder) | |||
| 1 | [γ0, γ1, γ2] | 16191 | 9.320326 | 0.060972 | −0.276690 | – |
| 2 | [γ0, γ1, γ2, γ3] | 16192 | 9.270098 | 0.060971 | −0.226365 | (0.110372) |
| 3 | [γ0, γ1, γ3] | 16196 | 9.128636 | 0.060968 | – | 0.251822 |
| 4 | [γ0, γ1] | 16201 | 9.188624 | 0.060951 | – | – |
| 5 | [γ0, γ2] | 16228 | 9.32036 | – | −0.27610 | – |
| 6 | [γ0, γ2, γ3] | 16229 | 9.27008 | – | −0.22573 | (0.11048) |
| 7 | [γ0, γ3] | 16233 | 9.12902 | – | – | 0.25154 |
| 8 | [γ0] | 16237 | 9.18896 | – | – | – |
AICs for running distance (Experiment 2). AICs and estimated coefficients of variables were calculated for 8 models designed for running distance in Experiment 2. The model [γ0, γ1, γ2] indicates that both day and maze had significant effects, whereas the second-smallest-AIC model [γ0, γ1, γ2, γ3] indicates that feeder was not reliable for its coefficient.
Opaque wall: X = 9.043636 + (0.060972 + ris) × day + rii.
Transparent wall: X = 9.320326 + (0.060972 + ris) × day + rii.