Table A5.
The maze–feeder-and-interaction model yielded the smallest AIC.
| Models | AIC | Estimated coefficients of variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| δ0 (Intercept) | δ1 (Maze) | δ2 (Feeder) | δ3 (Maze:feeder) | |||
| 1 | [δ0, δ1, δ2, δ3] | 434.8 | 2.67886 | (0.04795) | 0.39100 | −0.07668 |
| 2 | [δ0, δ2] | 437.7 | 2.69015 | – | 0.35387 | – |
| 3 | [δ0, δ1, δ2] | 439.4 | 2.74001 | (−0.09332) | 0.35381 | – |
| 4 | [δ0] | 490.3 | 2.6991 | – | – | – |
| 5 | [δ0, δ1] | 492.3 | 2.67413 | (0.04772) | – | – |
AICs for the number of pecks (Experiment 3). AICs and estimated coefficients of variables were calculated for 5 models designed for number of pecks in Experiment 3. The model [δ0, δ1, δ2, δ3] indicates that maze per se had no effects in the absence of feeder.
Single: X = 2.72681 + (0.31432 + ris) × feeder + rii.
Paired: X = 2.67886 + (0.39100 + ris) × feeder + rii.