analysis(matlab): formalize cross-study (current vs _f) rate comparison

Add make_crossstudy_compare.m producing crossstudy/result.txt + crossstudy_summary.csv: current control (A2, A2+Naive) and anodal (B2) arms vs the previous study's a2_f/b2_f, on per-animal success RATE, at full range (0-9 both) and attempt-matched (current 0-3 vs previous full). Finding: current > previous for both arms at full range (B2 0.54 vs 0.41 p=0.024; A2+Naive 0.42 vs 0.33 p=0.014) but the gap vanishes/reverses at matched effort (B2 0.33 vs 0.41 n.s.; A2 0.30 vs 0.33 n.s.) -- a practice/ attempts artifact (~2.7x more attempts/session), not a stronger cohort. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-22 15:21:33 -04:00
parent 9af33e747e
commit 5fcd97f81a
3 changed files with 140 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+arm,current,mode,window,nCur,rateCur,cumAttCur,prev,ratePrev,cumAttPrev,welchP,mwuP
+Control,A2,full,0-9,3,0.422221769664046,1021.66666666667,a2_f,0.332589396921808,384.166666666667,0.15806572958032,0.101098901098901
+Control,A2,matched,0-3,3,0.299133032915361,361,a2_f,0.332589396921808,384.166666666667,0.480083751892036,0.536263736263736
+Control,A2+Naive,full,0-9,7,0.41833141401484,1011.85714285714,a2_f,0.332589396921808,384.166666666667,0.0135445411684472,0.0283400809716599
+Control,A2+Naive,matched,0-3,7,0.26415993029607,293.714285714286,a2_f,0.332589396921808,384.166666666667,0.0948629941799642,0.119830118282131
+Anodal,B2,full,0-9,3,0.536727902171637,1232.66666666667,b2_f,0.405880120526244,426.583333333333,0.0244732462562875,0.0703296703296703
+Anodal,B2,matched,0-3,3,0.332091503267974,392.333333333333,b2_f,0.405880120526244,426.583333333333,0.0731567689117918,0.101098901098901
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+============================================================================================
+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.