spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

Right arrow Help viewing high resolution images
Right arrow Return to article

(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds.
If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)



Fig. 1. Raw and derived data from all six groups. (A) Raw behavioural scores. Two different graphs depict the same data in order to facilitate the interpretation of the complex data structure obtained from our experiments. (Ai) Multiple bars graph, (Aii) single bar graph. 1ag, high attacks, high aggressive encounter; 2ag, high attacks, low aggressive encounter; 3nonag, high/high attacks, non-aggressive encounter; 4nonag, high/low attacks, non-aggressive encounter; 5nonag, low/low attacks, non-aggressive encounter; 6ag, low attacks, high aggressive encounter; 7ag, low attacks, low aggressive encounter. (B) Derived probabilities. (Bi) The probability of attacking PA. For each subgroup (high, low) the fraction of encounters where a member of that subgroup was the aggressor is calculated from the total number of subgroup encounters. (Bii) The probability of an encounter PE. For each subgroup (high, low) the fraction of encounters (irrespective of classification) in which a member of that subgroup participated is calculated from the total number of encounters. Wtb, wild-type Berlin; 5ht, serotonin; oa, octopamine; da, dopamine; b/e, ß-alanine; mb, mushroom bodies. See Materials and methods for details of behavioural classification and fly groups.





Right arrow Return to article