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 | 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 | 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 | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –36.2 to 14.06 | |

xx | Two-way ANOVA on % success (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –48.87 to 1.39 | |

yy | Two-way ANOVA on time to target (factors: plume complexity and modality) | Bonferroni correction: –46.91 to –26.07 | |

zz | 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 |