. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2015 Jan 13;282:133–143. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.01.007

Table 1.

Regression models demonstrating brain areas in which NT density immunolabeling statistically explain behavioral variation.

Behavior	Model Statistics	Variables	Beta	p-Values
Time singing	Adjusted R² = 0.74, F_3,7 = 10.48, p=0.0056	BNST	0.64	0.0055
		LSr	0.39	0.048
		VTA	-0.37	0.054
Complete songs	Adjusted R² = 0.70, F_3,8 = 9.40, p=0.0053	LSr	0.51	0.032
		BNST	0.46	0.026
		PAG	0.22	0.28
Non-vocal courtship behaviors	Adjusted R² = 0.86, F_2,9 = 34.17, p<0.001	LSr	0.78	<0.001
	Adjusted R² = 0.86, F_2,9 = 34.17, p<0.001	BNST	0.39	0.0092
	Adjusted R² = 0.53, F_3,8 = 5.06, p=0.030	LSc.v	0.71	0.012
Agonistic behavior	Adjusted R² = 0.73, F_4,6 = 7.70, p=0.015	LSc.vl	0.51	0.034
		POM	-0.78	0.0054
		PAG	0.49	0.037
		BNST	0.19	0.33
	Adjusted R² = 0.78, F_4,6 = 9.69, p=0.0087	LSc.v	0.61	0.011
		VTA	0.49	0.025
		POM	-0.61	0.014
Feeding	No significant model	(none)
Preening	No significant model	(none)
Calling	No significant model	(none)