Every fitlme-based report (lme_*, paper_*, phase_*, and the variations'
analyze.m) now shows, per effect: residual-DF p, Satterthwaite-DF p, and --
for the interaction -- an HONEST test from a per-animal random-SLOPE model
(day|rat), whose Satterthwaite DF collapses toward the animal count.
New: tdcs_random_slope_interaction.m (shared helper). Wired into tdcs_lme,
tdcs_paper_lme, tdcs_phase_lme, variation_analyze; SUMMARY.csv gains
interaction_p_satt / interaction_p_rs. Regenerated all results/, variations/,
matched-effort outputs.
Key point this surfaces: Satterthwaite ~= residual on the random-INTERCEPT
model (the slope's error is at session level), so it does NOT fix
pseudoreplication; the random-slope model does. Effect: full-range mergeA2
interaction 0.009 -> 0.75 (collapses); unmerge_d0_5 0.015 -> 0.13 (n.s.);
the pooled-control early windows survive honestly (naive_a2_d0_5 0.001 ->
0.028; naive_boxa_d0_5 0.003 -> 0.036). Suite 42/42.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add make_matched_effort.m: pick the current-study day cutoff whose per-animal
cumulative attempts best match the previous (_f) study's full-span total
(~405 attempts/animal -> current days 0-3), then fit the paper LME on both.
Two variation folders (data.csv + analyze.m + result.txt):
variations/prev_f_full/ b2_f vs a2_f, days 0-9 (24 rats)
variations/matched_current_d0_3/ Box-B2 vs Box-A2, 0-3 (6 rats)
At matched cumulative effort both show a significant positive stim x day
interaction (prev p=0.008 +0.56/day; current-0-3 p=0.004 +10.2/day) -- the
tDCS acceleration replicates at equal practice, though the count slopes are
not directly comparable across datasets given differing attempts/session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Experiments DB Dev