Statistical analyses
| Location | Data structure | Statistical test | 95% confidence Intervals |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Paired % time spent wall-hugging (late phase vs early phase), n = 4 mice | Paired one-tailed t test | –35.91 to –18.15 |
| b | Paired % success (late phase vs early phase), n = 4 mice | Paired one-tailed t test | –1.79 to –21.51 |
| c | Paired % success (no honeycomb condition vs late phase), n = 4 mice | Paired two-tailed t test | –10.64 to 6.81 |
| d | % success for honeycomb and no honeycomb conditions per odor port | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: port #, plume complexity) | Bonferroni correction: –3.8 to 56.2 |
| e | % success for honeycomb and no honeycomb conditions per odor port | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: port #, plume complexity) | Bonferroni correction: –1.65 to 58.35 |
| f | % success for honeycomb and no honeycomb conditions per odor port | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: port #, plume complexity) | Bonferroni correction: –27.85 to 32.15 |
| g | Paired % success (no odor vs late phase), n = 4 mice | Paired one-tailed t test | –51.18 to –11.46 |
| h | Paired % success (no odor vs no honeycomb condition), n = 4 mice | Paired one-tailed t test | –46.02 to –12.78 |
| i | Paired distance to odor source on successful trials (late phase vs early phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | –114.2 to –7.34 |
| j | Paired time to odor source on successful trials (late phase vs early phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | –6.92 to –2.28 |
| k | Paired distance to odor source on successful trials (no honeycomb vs late phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | –25.94 to 18.91 |
| l | Paired time to odor source on successful trials (no honeycomb vs late phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | –25.94 to 18.91 |
| m | Paired average velocity during trial (no honeycomb vs late phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | 0.49 to 15.59 |
| n | Paired average angle sum during trial (no honeycomb vs late phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | –69.8 to 15.41 |
| o | Paired average Δ nose angle (no honeycomb vs late phase) | Paired two-tailed t test | 0.008 to 0.12 |
| p | Average nose/body distance ratio (late phase) | One-sample two-tailed t test | 1.13 to 1.15 |
| q | Average nose/ body distance ratio (no honeycomb) | One-sample two-tailed t test | 1.14 to 1.26 |
| r | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 5.18 to 11.56 |
| s | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 1.47 to 6.36 |
| t | Linearity for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on linearity (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.044 to 0.086 |
| u | Linearity for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on linearity (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.013 to 0.033 |
| v | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 16.92 to 23.3 |
| w | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.51 to 6.88 |
| x | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 3.1 to 7.99 |
| y | Linearity for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on linearity (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.13 to 0.17 |
| z | Linearity for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on linearity (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.01 to 0.05 |
| aa | Linearity for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on linearity (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: 0.03 to 0.05 |
| bb | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: –16.23 to –9.86 |
| cc | % success for static and dynamic across Code A and Code B, sensor distance 8 and 16 cm | Three-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity code, and sensor separation distance) | Bonferroni correction: –4.49 to 1.88 |
| dd | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –46.6 to –10.68 |
| ee | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –46.07 to –10.15 |
| ff | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –42.8 to –6.87 |
| gg | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –37.19 to –1.24 |
| hh | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –44.17 to –23.34 |
| ii | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –47.01 to –26.18 |
| jj | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –45.67 to –24.84 |
| kk | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –49.43 to –28.18 |
| ll | Paired % success (no honeycomb condition vs honeycomb Code A), n = 4 sessions | Paired two-tailed t test | –97.78 to –27.22 |
| mm | Paired % success (no honeycomb condition vs honeycomb Code B), n = 4 sessions | Paired two-tailed t test | –27.38 to –11.91 |
| nn | Paired % success (no honeycomb condition vs honeycomb Code B), n = 4 sessions | Paired two-tailed t test | –67.52 to –27.48 |
| oo | % success for honeycomb condition per start angle | One-way ANOVA (factor: start angle) | Bonferroni correction: 24.45 to 125.5 |
| pp | % success for honeycomb condition per start angle | One-way ANOVA (factor: start angle) | Bonferroni correction: –6.11 to 116.1 |
| % success for honeycomb condition per start angle | One-way ANOVA (factor: start angle) | Bonferroni correction: 11.79 to 133.2 | |
| rr | % success for honeycomb condition per start angle | One-way ANOVA (factor: start angle) | Bonferroni correction: –19.37 to 114.4 |
| ss | Linearity for honeycomb and no honeycomb using Code B across start angle | Two-way ANOVA (factors: plume complexity start angle) | Bonferroni correction: 0.051 to 0.29 |
| tt | Linearity for honeycomb and no honeycomb using Code B across start angle | Two-way ANOVA (factors: plume complexity start angle) | Bonferroni correction: 0.047 to 0.32 |
| uu | Linearity score for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on linearity score (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: 0.014 to 0.42 |
| vv | Linearity score for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on linearity score (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: 0.046 to 0.45 |
| ww | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –36.2 to 14.06 |
| xx | % success for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –48.87 to 1.39 |
| yy | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –46.91 to –26.07 |
| zz | Time to target for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –51.97 to –31.13 |
| aaa | Velocity for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: 16.77 to 25.09 |
| bbb | Velocity for low complexity and high complexity across modalities (mouse, model Code A, model Code B, and robot Code B) | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: 24.9 to 33.22 |