Table 3.

Results of the participant-level (N = 92) model comparison on the data set by Gonthier et al. (2016) between the DMC model (m_DMC) shown in Fig. 2 and the alternative models (m_alternative) shown in Fig. 6a-c. The model comparisons were performed based on $\text{ΔBIC}=\mathrm{BI}{\mathrm{C}}_{{\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{DMC}}}-\mathrm{BI}{\mathrm{C}}_{{\mathrm{m}}_{\text{alternative}}}$.

	Extended model (Fig. 6a)	Exclusivity without inhibition (Fig. 6b)	Exclusivity with inhibition (Fig. 6c)
% participants whose data is best explained by this model:	0%	26.1%	0%
% participants for whom the evidence for mDMC over malternative is
very strong (ΔBIC > 10)	7.6%	-	8.7%
strong (6 < ΔBIC < 10)	50.0%	-	46.7%
positive (2 < ΔBIC < 6)	40.2%	10.9%	41.3%
weakly positive (0 < ΔBIC < 2)	2.2%	63.0%	3.3%
weakly negative (−2 < ΔBIC < 0)	-	26.1%	-
negative ( −6 < ΔBIC <  − 2)	-	-	-
strongly negative (−10 < ΔBIC <  − 6)	-	-	-