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
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
77 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
==============================================================================
|
|
LINEAR MIXED MODEL (days x tDCS) -- scenario: lme_mergeB2_d0_13
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
model: success ~ day * tDCS + (1|subject) [tDCS: Electrode-Box-B2 = 1 vs Electrode-Box-A2 = 0]
|
|
N = 8 subjects, 98 sessions
|
|
day coverage: Box-B2 0..13, Box-A2 0..13
|
|
(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 98
|
|
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
|
|
803.97 819.48 -395.99 791.97
|
|
|
|
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
|
|
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} 21.528 5.1581 4.1736 94 6.6907e-05
|
|
{'day' } 6.6603 0.67208 9.91 94 2.855e-16
|
|
{'tDCS' } 1.8428 6.4496 0.28572 94 0.77572
|
|
{'day:tDCS' } 1.5375 0.78742 1.9525 94 0.053848
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
11.286 31.769
|
|
5.3259 7.9948
|
|
-10.963 14.649
|
|
-0.025966 3.1009
|
|
|
|
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
|
|
Group: subject (8 Levels)
|
|
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 5.4251
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
2.6045 11.3
|
|
|
|
Group: Error
|
|
Name Estimate Lower Upper
|
|
{'Res Std'} 13.148 11.362 15.215
|
|
|
|
|
|
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
days x tDCS (interaction) t(94)= 1.95 F(1)= 3.812 p=0.05385 p=0.05377 (df=97)
|
|
days (learning) t(94)= 9.91 F(1)= 98.208 p=2.855e-16 p=1.981e-16 (df=98)
|
|
tDCS (main, at Day 1) t(94)= 0.29 F(1)= 0.082 p=0.7757 p=0.7776 (df=24)
|
|
|
|
HONEST LME -- per-animal random slope (day|subject): interaction F(1,29.7)=3.25, p=0.08138
|
|
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=0.0538, slope diff=1.54) -> slopes are parallel (no differential change over training).
|
|
- days (learning): SIGNIFICANT (p=2.9e-16) -> performance improves with training.
|
|
- tDCS main effect on Day 1 (our day 0): n.s. (p=0.7757) -> 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.)
|