"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Choice order across all 20 trials per individual in each experiment

The order in which the more functional choices (dark gray: water, heavy, light, rewarded color, connected) or less functional choices (light gray: sand, light, heavy, unrewarded color, unconnected) were chosen (columns) and whether the bird successfully obtained the food (marked with an X) for trials 1-20 (rows).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1616v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Corina J Logan conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Brigit D Harvey performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Barney A Schlinger contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Michelle Rensel reviewed drafts of the paper, provided logistical support.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

This research was carried out in accordance with the University of California Los Angeles’ (UCLA) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol # 1995-026-63).

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Logan CJ. 2015b. Western scrub-jay water tube experiments, Los Angeles, CA USA 2014-2015. The Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity (KNB).


This research was funded by the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind at the University of California Santa Barbara (CJL) and by an RO1 grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (grant number: MH061994; BAS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies
  Visitors   Views   Downloads