Experiments DB Dev
8a18c894dd
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>
77 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
77 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
==============================================================================
|
|
LINEAR MIXED MODEL (days x tDCS) -- scenario: lme_mergeB2_d0_10
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
model: success ~ day * tDCS + (1|subject) [tDCS: Electrode-Box-B2 = 1 vs Electrode-Box-A2 = 0]
|
|
N = 8 subjects, 83 sessions
|
|
day coverage: Box-B2 0..10, Box-A2 0..10
|
|
(day is raw and 0-indexed: our day 0 = the paper's "Day 1", so the tDCS
|
|
main effect below is the group difference on Day 1 -- comparable to the paper.)
|
|
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
FULL MODEL SUMMARY -- fitlme: success ~ day*tDCS + (1|subject)
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Linear mixed-effects model fit by ML
|
|
|
|
Model information:
|
|
Number of observations 83
|
|
Fixed effects coefficients 4
|
|
Random effects coefficients 8
|
|
Covariance parameters 2
|
|
|
|
Formula:
|
|
success ~ 1 + day*tDCS + (1 | subject)
|
|
|
|
Model fit statistics:
|
|
AIC BIC LogLikelihood Deviance
|
|
669.06 683.57 -328.53 657.06
|
|
|
|
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
|
|
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} 17.318 5.1725 3.348 79 0.0012488
|
|
{'day' } 7.9975 0.75795 10.551 79 9.547e-17
|
|
{'tDCS' } 0.42782 6.5088 0.06573 79 0.94776
|
|
{'day:tDCS' } 1.7407 0.91342 1.9057 79 0.060324
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
7.0221 27.613
|
|
6.4888 9.5061
|
|
-12.528 13.383
|
|
-0.07739 3.5588
|
|
|
|
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
|
|
Group: subject (8 Levels)
|
|
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 5.7075
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
2.7829 11.705
|
|
|
|
Group: Error
|
|
Name Estimate Lower Upper
|
|
{'Res Std'} 11.955 10.184 14.034
|
|
|
|
|
|
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
days x tDCS (interaction) t(79)= 1.91 F(1)= 3.632 p=0.06032 p=0.06034 (df=79)
|
|
days (learning) t(79)= 10.55 F(1)=111.334 p=9.547e-17 p=8.241e-17 (df=80)
|
|
tDCS (main, at Day 1) t(79)= 0.07 F(1)= 0.004 p=0.9478 p=0.9482 (df=21)
|
|
|
|
HONEST LME -- per-animal random slope (day|subject): interaction F(1,30.6)=3.00, p=0.09319
|
|
Note: Satterthwaite DF on the random-INTERCEPT model above stays ~= residual
|
|
(the slope's error is at the session level), so it does NOT fix pseudoreplication.
|
|
Letting each animal have its OWN slope collapses the interaction DF toward the animal
|
|
count -- this, and the per-animal slope test, are the honest learning-rate inference.
|
|
|
|
INTERPRETATION
|
|
- days x tDCS interaction: n.s. (p=0.0603, slope diff=1.74) -> slopes are parallel (no differential change over training).
|
|
- days (learning): SIGNIFICANT (p=9.5e-17) -> performance improves with training.
|
|
- tDCS main effect on Day 1 (our day 0): n.s. (p=0.9478) -> the groups are comparable (as in the paper) on Day 1.
|
|
|
|
Paper reference (N=24): interaction t(227)=2.68, F(1)=7.12, p=0.008;
|
|
days t(227)=9.64, F(1)=267.64, p=1.2e-18; tDCS t(227)=0.23, F(1)=0.053, p=0.81.
|
|
(Our N and exact statistics differ; this replicates the MODEL FORM on our data.)
|