Table 1.
Summary of the four trial conditions used in the test sessions.
Fig 1.
The flow chart of the experiment.
The rats were subjected to the single task after training, followed by the other three tasks with a cagemate and two non-cagemate partners. After all the tests were completed, each subject participated in the three-chamber test as both a subject and a stimulus animal.
Table 2.
Summary of the LMM of the effects of the four task conditions, stimulus type, and subject strain on the compatibility effect.
Fig 2.
Boxplots for the compatibility effect in the single, control, joint, and paired-control conditions with two stimulus conditions.
Each plot indicates the compatibility effect for go and no-go trials. The significant differences determined via multiple comparison are shown in connecting lines. Note that the Y-axis is limited to −0.40 to 0.40 for readability (full range = −1 to 1).
Table 3.
Summary of the exploratory LMM on the effect of the task conditions, cagemate conditions, stimulus type, and subject strain on the compatibility effect between joint and paired control tasks.
Fig 3.
Boxplots for the compatibility effect in the joint and paired-control conditions based on familiarity (cagemate dyad: n = 4; non-cagemate dyad: n = 8).
The compatibility effect in joint task conditions of the familiar dyads was significantly higher than that in the unfamiliar dyads (Table 3; S4 Table). Note that the Y-axis is limited to −.40 to.40 for readability (full range = −1 to 1).
Fig 4.
Boxplots for the proportion of the time spent in the front area (N = 8).
The vertical axis shows differences in the proportion of time spent between the habituation and test phases.