Files
Experiments DB Dev 8a18c894dd feat(matlab): add Satterthwaite DF + honest random-slope test to LME reports
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>
2026-07-22 15:45:19 -04:00

77 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext

==============================================================================
PAPER LME REPLICATION -- mergeNaive (days 0-10)
==============================================================================
model: behavior ~ stim + day + stim:day + (1|rat) [stim: Electrode-Box-B2=1 vs Electrode-Box-A2=0]
behavior = successful reaches (COUNT per session)
N = 11 rats, 115 sessions (day raw; day 0 = paper "Day 1")
day coverage: stim(B2) 0..10, control(A2) 0..10
(Equal day coverage -- the stim:day interaction over this window is NOT
confounded by the full-range coverage imbalance.)
==============================================================================
FULL MODEL SUMMARY -- fitlme: behavior ~ stim + day + stim:day + (1|rat)
==============================================================================
Linear mixed-effects model fit by ML
Model information:
Number of observations 115
Fixed effects coefficients 4
Random effects coefficients 11
Covariance parameters 2
Formula:
behavior ~ 1 + day*stim + (1 | rat)
Model fit statistics:
AIC BIC LogLikelihood Deviance
952.54 969.01 -470.27 940.54
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
{'(Intercept)'} 10.33 4.3573 2.3706 111 0.019482
{'day' } 8.0907 0.51948 15.575 111 1.0806e-29
{'stim' } 9.4432 7.1538 1.32 111 0.18954
{'day:stim' } 1.6184 0.8216 1.9699 111 0.051345
Lower Upper
1.6953 18.964
7.0613 9.12
-4.7326 23.619
-0.0096134 3.2465
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
Group: rat (11 Levels)
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 8.4877
Lower Upper
5.0001 14.408
Group: Error
Name Estimate Lower Upper
{'Res Std'} 13.352 11.652 15.299
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stim x day (interaction) t(111)= 1.97 F(1)= 3.880 p=0.05134 p=0.05149 (df=105)
day (learning) t(111)= 15.57 F(1)=242.567 p=1.081e-29 p=3.188e-29 (df=107)
stim (main, Day 1) t(111)= 1.32 F(1)= 1.742 p=0.1895 p=0.2003 (df=22)
interaction 95% CI: [-0.01, +3.25]
HONEST LME -- per-rat random slope (day|rat): interaction F(1,10.1)=2.00, p=0.1875
Satterthwaite DF on the random-INTERCEPT model above stays ~= residual (the
slope's error is at session level), so it does NOT fix pseudoreplication. A per-animal
random slope collapses the interaction DF toward the animal count -- the honest test.
INTERPRETATION
- stim x day interaction: n.s. (p=0.0513, slope diff=+1.62) -> slopes parallel -- no differential learning rate over this window.
- stim main effect on Day 1 (our day 0): n.s. (p=0.1895) -> groups are comparable on Day 1.
Paper (N=24): interaction t(227)=2.68, F(1)=7.12, p=0.008; day t(227)=9.64,
F(1)=267.64, p=1.2e-18; stim t(227)=0.23, F(1)=0.053, p=0.81.