Table 1.

Relevance of respiratory predictors across paradigms.

	Beta [CI]	t-value	P value
Fraction correct responses—stimulus aligned
State	0.007 [− 0.020, 0.034]	0.487	0.6262
Phase	− 0.001 [− 0.008, 0.006]	− 0.288	0.7733
State*Phase	− 0.002 [− 0.012, 0.008]	− 0.479	0.6323
Intercept	0.749 [0.647, 0.851]	14.341	0.0000
LR-Test		Chi-sq(3) = 1.0288	0.79428
Fraction correct responses—response aligned
State	0.029 [0.002, 0.056]	2.133	0.0330
Phase	0.007 [0.000, 0.014]	2.071	0.0330
State*Phase	− 0.011 [− 0.021, − 0.001]	− 2.211	0.0271
Intercept	0.743 [0.642, 0.843]	14.527	0.0000
LR-Test		Chi-sq(3) = 5.4721	0.14032
Reaction times—stimulus aligned
State	− 0.006 [− 0.033, 0.021]	− 0.420	0.6742
Phase	− 0.001 [− 0.008, 0.006]	− 0.157	0.8753
Phase*Phase	0.010 [0.000, 0.020]	1.987	0.0470
Intercept	− 0.408 [− 0.668, − 0.148]	− 3.075	0.0021
LR-Test		Chi-sq(3) = 18.617	0.0003
Reaction times—response aligned
State	− 0.053 [− 0.081, − 0.025]	− 3.708	0.0002
Phase	− 0.011 [− 0.018, − 0.004]	− 3.015	0.0026
State*Phase	0.023 [0.013, 0.034]	4.471	< 10–4
Intercept	− 0.293 [− 0.559, − 0.026]	− 2.155	0.0312
LR-Test		Chi-sq(3) = 20.818	0.0001

The relation between respiration and behavioural performance (Fraction correct responses, log-transformed reaction times) was probed using mixed linear models, which were fit separately using the state and phase of respiration obtained at stimulus onset or the response time (c.f. Figure 1A). The table provides the predictor coefficients (incl. 95% confidence intervals), the respective t- and p-values and the result of a likelihood-ratio test comparing a model with and a model without the respiratory predictors.

Significant values are in bold.