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

69 lines
2.9 KiB
Plaintext

==============================================================================
VARIATION: right_only_d6_13
==============================================================================
model: behavior ~ stim + day + stim:day + (1|rat) (behavior = success COUNT)
day = training day within window (0 = first analyzed day)
treatment (stim=1): Electrode-Box-B2, Right-Electrode
control (stim=0): Electrode-Box-A2
N = 6 rats, 42 sessions raw day coverage: treat 6..13, control 6..13
(equal day coverage over this window)
==============================================================================
FULL MODEL SUMMARY -- fitlme
==============================================================================
Linear mixed-effects model fit by ML
Model information:
Number of observations 42
Fixed effects coefficients 4
Random effects coefficients 6
Covariance parameters 2
Formula:
behavior ~ 1 + day*stim + (1 | rat)
Model fit statistics:
AIC BIC LogLikelihood Deviance
309.98 320.4 -148.99 297.98
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
{'(Intercept)'} 75.163 5.7598 13.049 38 1.2935e-15
{'day' } 1.7153 1.01 1.6984 38 0.097608
{'stim' } 11.525 7.0338 1.6386 38 0.10956
{'day:stim' } 2.7579 1.1891 2.3193 38 0.02585
Lower Upper
63.503 86.823
-0.32925 3.7599
-2.7138 25.764
0.35071 5.1651
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
Group: rat (6 Levels)
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 6.4688
Lower Upper
3.3423 12.52
Group: Error
Name Estimate Lower Upper
{'Res Std'} 7.3669 5.8525 9.2731
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stim x day (interaction) t(38)= 2.32 F(1)= 5.379 p=0.02585 p=0.02591 (df=38)
day (learning) t(38)= 1.70 F(1)= 2.885 p=0.09761 p=0.09766 (df=38)
stim (main, window start) t(38)= 1.64 F(1)= 2.685 p=0.1096 p=0.1304 (df=11)
interaction 95% CI: [+0.35, +5.17]
HONEST LME (per-animal random slope, day|rat): interaction F(1,21.2)=4.96, p=0.03697
(Satterthwaite DF ~= residual on this random-intercept model; the random-slope
model above is the honest learning-rate test -- DF collapses toward the animal count.)
INTERPRETATION: stim x day interaction SIGNIFICANT positive -- treatment improves FASTER (benefit accumulates) (p=0.02585, slope diff=+2.76)
Paper (N=24): interaction t(227)=2.68, F(1)=7.12, p=0.008.