Table 2 The table reports the statistical testing of the temporal aspects of the H1 predictions: that specific environments select for specific conceptualisations and therefore that these types will increase in their use over time, more so than others within the same condition.

Hypothesis	Contrasts	Beta (in log odds) 95% CIs	ER/ER01
H1_P1	figural	0.19, 95% CIs 0.03–0.34	ER = 36.74
Increase in use of figural in irregular mazes	figural vs. line	−0.04, 95% CIs −0.28 to 0.2	ER = 0.61
	figural vs. path	0.41, 95% CIs −0.33 to 1.22	ER > 1000
	figural vs. matrix	0.4, 95% CIs 0–0.83	ER = 19.1
H1_P2	line	0.92, 95% CIs 0.58–1.28	ER > 1000
Increase in use of line in stratified mazes	line vs. figural	0.58, 95% CIs 0.26–0.92	ER = 570.43
	line vs. path	2.19, 95% CIs 0.85–3.67	ER > 1000
	line vs. matrix	0.9, 95% CIs 0.42–1.4	ER > 1000
H1_P3	matrix	−0.06, 95% CIs −0.39 to 0.25	ER = 0.62
Increase in use of matrix in regular mazes	matrix vs. figural	0.2, 95% CIs −0.19 to 0.57	ER = 4.24
	matrix vs. line	0.33, 95% CIs −0.11 to 0.76	ER = 9.18
	matrix vs. path	−0.78, 95% CIs −1.72 to 0.07	ER = 0.04, ER01 = 1.21
H1_P4	path	0.72, 95% CIs 0.17–1.33	ER = 124
Increase in use of path in regular mazes	path vs. figural	0.98, 95% CIs 0.28–1.72	ER = 306.69
	path vs. line	1.12, 95% CIs 0.32–2.00	ER = 249
	path vs. matrix	0.78, 95% CIs −0.07 to 1.72	ER = 27

“Hypothesis” identifies the relevant predictions being tested. “Contrasts” indicates which conditions are being contrasted for the use of which strategy. The third column reports the mean expected estimate, Beta, in log odds and 95% compatibility intervals, and the fourth column, the Evidence Ratio (ER) for the hypothesis and, when relevant, the Evidence Ratio for the null hypothesis (ER01). Note that we are using linear models of time, since this model was credibly better than the others (stacking weight = 1, compared to 0 for monotonic time and 0 for condition only).

Quick links

Search