samsam2610/experiments-database
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

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

Browse Source 
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>
This commit is contained in:
Experiments DB Dev
2026-07-22 15:21:33 -04:00
parent 9af33e747e
commit 5fcd97f81a
3 changed files with 140 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
analysis/matlab/crossstudy/result.txt
+29
View File
@@ -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.