Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 5;17(12):e3000524. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000524

Table 1. Model comparisons for the individual and strain familiarity experiments.

A. Explaining Demonstrator Freezing in the Individual Familiarity Experiment
Model 1 4 3 2 5 8 7 6
Elpdloo Estimate −27.2 −23.0 16.4 20.5 36.0 36.1 37.1 41.5
SE 1.9 6.7 10.3 11.2 16.4 14.7 13.5 15.2
Interceptobs 0.34
(0.26–0.42)		 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Shockdem --- --- --- --- 0.68
(0.64–0.73)		 0.64
(0.57–0.71)		 0.47
(0.35–0.58)		 0.47
(0.36–0.58)
Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- --- 1.05
(0.96–1.15)		 --- --- --- 0.37
(0.19–0.54)
Weeks*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- 0.31
(0.24–0.38)		 --- --- --- 0.03
(0.0–0.07)		 --- ---
0Weeks*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- 0.94
(0.74–1.13)		 --- --- --- 0.29
(0.08–0.49)		 ---
1Week*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- 1.14
(0.94–1.34)		 --- --- --- 0.42
(0.19–0.64)		 ---
3Weeks*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- 1.04
(0.87–1.20)		 --- --- --- 0.39
(0.20–0.59)		 ---
5Weeks*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- 1.13
(0.88–1.37)		 --- --- --- 0.34
(0.09–0.60)		 ---
Sigmadem 0.37
(0.31–0.44)		 0.34
(0.29–0.41)		 0.18
(0.15–0.21)		 0.17
(0.14–0.20)		 0.13
(0.11–0.16)		 0.13
(0.11–0.15)		 0.12
(0.10–0.14)		 0.12
(0.10–0.14)
B. Explaining Observer Freezing in the Individual Familiarity Experiment
Model 4 1 3 2
Elpdloo Estimate −21.8 −17.9 10.7 13.5
SE 7.0 3.0 7.9 7.8
Interceptdem --- 0.34
(0.25–0.44)		 --- ---
Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- --- 0.85
(0.75–0.94)
Weeks*Freezingdem*Shockdem 0.24
(0.18–0.30)		 --- --- ---
0Weeks*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- 0.87
(0.66–1.08)		 ---
1Week*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- 0.77
(0.59–0.94)		 ---
3Weeks*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- 0.93
(0.76–1.10)		 ---
5Weeks*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- 0.77
(0.54–1.00)		 ---
Sigmaobs 0.34
(0.28–0.40)		 0.32
(0.27–0.38)		 0.20
(0.16–0.24)		 0.19
(0.16–0.23)
C. Explaining Demonstrator Freezing in the Strain Familiarity Experiment
Model 1 7 2 3 9 8 4 10 5 6 11 12
Elpdloo Estimate −26.7 −13.3 65.4 66.2 70.5 71.6 78.0 87.9 103.8 108.2 108.8 110.0
SE 4.4 10.4 12.5 12.2 11.4 11.5 9.8 12.6 12.4 12.2 13.0 13.1
Interceptdem 0.28
(0.23–0.34)		 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Shockdem --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.55
(0.52–0.59)		 0.48
(0.44–0.52)		 0.32
(0.26–0.38)		 0.33
(0.27–0.39)		 0.30
(0.25–0.36) 		0.31
(0.25–0.37)
Straindem*Shockdem --- 0.63
(0.53–0.73)		 --- --- 0.13
(0.06–0.20)		 0.14
(0.07–0.21)		 --- 0.15
(0.09–0.21)		 --- --- 0.10
(0.05–0.15) 		0.08
(0.02–0.13)
Straindem*NoShockdem --- 0.02
(−0.08 to 0.1)		 --- --- 0.00
(−0.05 to 0.06)		 0.01
(−0.04 to 0.06)		 --- 0.02
(−0.02 to 0.06)		 --- --- 0.01
(−0.03 to 0.05) 		0.00
(−0.04 to 0.04)
Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- 0.99
(0.93–1.06)		 --- --- 0.86
(0.78–0.95)		 --- --- 0.46
(0.35–0.57)		 --- 0.40
(0.29–0.51) 		---
SameStrain*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- --- 1.06
(0.97–1.14)		 0.90
(0.78–1.02)		 --- --- --- --- 0.53
(0.41–0.64)		 --- 0.46
(0.34–0.58)
DifferentStrain*Freezingobs*Shockdem --- --- --- 0.92
(0.83–1.01)		 0.84
(0.74–0.94)		 --- --- --- --- 0.37
(0.25–0.49)		 --- 0.35
(0.24–0.47)
Sigmadem 0.30
(0.27–0.34)		 0.27
(0.24–0.31)		 0.14
(0.12–0.16)		 0.14
(0.12–0.13)		 0.13
(0.12–0.15)		 0.13
(0.12–0.15)		 0.13
(0.11–0.14)		 0.11
(0.10–0.13)		 0.10
(0.09–0.11)		 0.10
(0.08–0.11)		 0.09
(0.08–0.11) 		0.09
(0.08–0.11)
D. Explaining Observer Freezing in the Strain Familiarity Experiment
Model 4 1 7 10 3 2 9 8 6 5 12 11
Elpdloo Estimate −60.7 −19.7 −1.1 −0.8 56.1 56.8 65.2 65.4 66.9 67.6 71.0 71.2
SE 7.3 5.1 11.3 11.2 9.5 9.8 9.0 9.5 9.0 9.2 8.5 8.8
Interceptobs --- 0.28
(0.23–0.33)		 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Strainobs*Shockdem --- --- 0.58
(0.50–0.66)		 0.61
(0.53–0.69)		 --- --- 0.13
(0.06–0.20)		 0.13
(0.06–0.20)		 --- --- 0.05
(−0.04 to 0.13)		 0.04
(−0.04 to 0.13)
Strainobs*NoShockdem --- --- 0.09
(0.01–0.17)		 0.10
(0.02–0.19)		 --- --- 0.08
(0.03–0.13)		 0.08
(0.03–0.13)		 --- --- 0.09
(0.04–0.13)		 0.08
(0.04–0.13)
Preexposureobs*Shockdem 0.10
(0.0–0.21)		 --- --- −0.07
−0.13 to 0.00		 --- --- --- --- 0.09
(0.05–0.12)		 0.09
(0.05–0.12)		 0.08
(0.04–0.12)		 0.08
(0.04–0.12)
Preexposureobs*NoShockdem 0.01
(−0.09 to 0.11)		 --- --- −0.02
(−0.08 to 0.05)		 --- --- --- --- 0.01
(−0.02 to 0.05)		 0.01
(−0.02 to 0.05)		 −0.01
(−0.05 to 0.03)		 −0.01
(−0.05 to 0.03)
FreezingDEM*Shockdem --- --- --- --- --- 0.90
(0.83–0.96)		 --- 0.76
(0.66–0.86)		 --- 0.89
(0.83–0.95)		 --- 0.85
(0.74–0.95)
SameStrain*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- --- --- 0.85
(0.77–0.94)		 --- 0.71
(0.60–0.82)		 --- 0.85
(0.77–0.93)		 --- 0.80
(0.69–0.91)		 ---
DifferentStrain*Freezingdem*Shockdem --- --- --- --- 0.96
(0.86–1.07)		 --- 0.83
(0.71–0.95)		 --- 0.96
(0.86–1.05)		 --- 0.91
(0.79–1.03)		 ---
Sigmaobs 0.40
(0.35–0.46)		 0.30
(0.27–0.34)		 0.24
(0.21–0.28)		 0.24
(0.21–0.27)		 0.15
(0.13–0.17)		 0.15
(0.13–0.17)		 0.14
(0.12–0.16)		 0.13
(0.12–0.15)		 0.14
(0.12–0.16)		 0.14
(0.12–0.16)		 0.13
(0.11–0.15)		 0.13
(0.11–0.15)

For each experiment, separate models were constructed to describe the level of freezing of the dem and the obs. The number of models varies depending on the variables that were included (Fig 4). The models were ordered based on their increasing Elpdloo, with the worst model on the left and the best model on the right. The first column lists the variables included in each model. Values in the table indicate the parameter estimates with their credible intervals below (2.5%–97.5%). The model in bold always indicates the winning model.

Abbreviations: dem, demonstrator; Elpdloo, expected log pointwise predictive density according to the leave-one-out approximation; obs, observer; SE, standard error of the Elpdloo