Table 1.
Results of the ANOVA run on the linear mixed model output.
| Route type | PD | Route type × PD | R2c | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time estimates, matched PD | |||||
| Exp. 1 | Bias score | F(1, 286) = 15.83, P < 0.001 | F(1, 286) = 37.72, P < 0.001 | F(1, 286) = 2.95, P = 0.087 | 74.4% |
| Proportion | F(1, 286) = 9.73, P = 0.002 | F(1, 286) = 2.50, P = 0.115 | F(1, 286) = 1.07, P = 0.302 | 75.9% | |
| Exp. 2 | Bias score | F(1, 82) = 7.98, P = 0.006 | F(1, 82) = 1.09, P = 0.299 | F(1, 82) = 0.004, P = 0.948 | 90.1% |
| Proportion | F(1, 82) = 11.44, P = 0.001 | F(1, 82) = 7.98, P = 0.006 | F(1, 82) = 0.305, P = 0.582 | 93.0% | |
| Distance estimates, matched ED | |||||
| Exp. 1 | Bias score | F(1, 296) = 5.23, P = 0.023 | F(1, 296) = 0.122, P = 0.728 | F(1, 296) = 21.62, P < 0.001 | 72.3% |
| Proportion | F(1, 296) = 10.97, P = 0.001 | F(1, 296) = 0.559, P = 0.456 | F(1, 296) = 0.695, P = 0.405 | 79.7% | |
| Exp. 2 | Bias score | F(1, 97) = 11.17, P = 0.001 | F(1, 97) = 0.497, P = 0.483 | F(1, 97) = 11.11, P = 0.001 | 78.3% |
| Proportion | F(1, 97) = 17.82, P < 0.001 | F(1, 97) = 8.26, P < 0.001 | F(1, 97) = 15.43, P < 0.001 | 76.9% | |
For Experiment 1, routes with matched path distance (PD) include goals G-M on L-shaped routes, and goals M′-G′ on U-shaped routes. Routes with matched ED include goals A-G on L-shaped routes, and goals M′-G′ on U-shaped routes. For Experiment 2, routes with matched PD include goals I-M on L-shaped routes, and goals M′-I′ on U-shaped routes. Routes with matched ED include goals A-E on L-shaped routes, and goals M′-I′ on U-shaped routes. The residual degrees of freedom are reflective of the number of trials included in each model. The effect sizes are expressed as conditional R2 values for each model (R2c), which describe the proportion of variance accounted for by the fixed and random factors in the model (Nakagawa & Schielzeth, 2013). Parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials.