============================================================================================
CROSS-STUDY COMPARISON: current vs previous (Forouzan, _f) -- per-animal success RATE
============================================================================================
Metric: per-animal rate = sum(success)/sum(attempts). Rate is used because the
current protocol runs ~2.7x more attempts/session, so raw counts are not comparable.
Anodal = Box-B2 (contralateral tDCS); control = Box-A2 (ipsilateral sham) +/- Naive.
Previous study: b2_f = Anodal, a2_f = Control (validated: b2_f reproduces the paper's
positive tDCS x day interaction). "matched" = current days 0-3 vs previous full 0-9,
equalising cumulative attempts (the previous study's whole span ~= current's first 3 days).

arm      current    window    nCur   rate   cumAtt     prev   rate   cumAtt    Welch p    MWU p
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control  A2         0-9          3  0.422     1022     a2_f  0.333      384      0.158    0.101
Control  A2         0-3          3  0.299      361     a2_f  0.333      384      0.480    0.536
Control  A2+Naive   0-9          7  0.418     1012     a2_f  0.333      384      0.014    0.028
Control  A2+Naive   0-3          7  0.264      294     a2_f  0.333      384      0.095    0.120
Anodal   B2         0-9          3  0.537     1233     b2_f  0.406      427      0.024    0.070
Anodal   B2         0-3          3  0.332      392     b2_f  0.406      427      0.073    0.101

INTERPRETATION
  - FULL range (0-9 both): current > previous for BOTH arms (control and anodal),
    e.g. B2 0.54 vs b2_f 0.41 (p=0.024); A2+Naive 0.42 vs a2_f 0.33 (p=0.014).
  - MATCHED effort (current 0-3 vs previous full): the gap disappears and slightly
    reverses -- B2 0.33 vs b2_f 0.41 (n.s.); A2 0.30 vs a2_f 0.33 (n.s.).
  => The current study's apparent superiority is a PRACTICE/ATTEMPTS artifact: its
     protocol packs ~2.7x more attempts/session, pushing every arm further along the
     learning curve by a given day. At equal effort the two cohorts perform the same.
     Note: A2+Naive 0-3 is slightly under-matched on attempts (294 vs ~384); A2-alone
     0-3 (361 vs 384) is the cleaner apples-to-apples match.
