Experiments DB Dev
5fcd97f81a
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>
30 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
30 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
============================================================================================
|
|
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.
|