Files
experiments-database/analysis/matlab/results/paper_mergeNaive_d0_13.txt
T
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 0-13)
==============================================================================
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, 138 sessions (day raw; day 0 = paper "Day 1")
day coverage: stim(B2) 0..13, control(A2) 0..13
(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 138
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
1164.9 1182.4 -576.44 1152.9
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
{'(Intercept)'} 16.254 4.2865 3.792 134 0.00022519
{'day' } 6.4041 0.42677 15.006 134 1.7662e-30
{'stim' } 8.9845 7.0391 1.2764 134 0.20403
{'day:stim' } 1.7992 0.67672 2.6587 134 0.008801
Lower Upper
7.7764 24.732
5.5601 7.2482
-4.9377 22.907
0.46073 3.1376
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
Group: rat (11 Levels)
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 8.1481
Lower Upper
4.7633 13.938
Group: Error
Name Estimate Lower Upper
{'Res Std'} 14.825 13.109 16.766
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stim x day (interaction) t(134)= 2.66 F(1)= 7.068 p=0.008801 p=0.008831 (df=130)
day (learning) t(134)= 15.01 F(1)=225.182 p=1.766e-30 p=2.418e-30 (df=132)
stim (main, Day 1) t(134)= 1.28 F(1)= 1.629 p=0.204 p=0.2142 (df=24)
interaction 95% CI: [+0.46, +3.14]
HONEST LME -- per-rat random slope (day|rat): interaction F(1,54.8)=6.46, p=0.01387
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: SIGNIFICANT (p=0.0088, slope diff=+1.80) -> tDCS (Box-B2) improves FASTER -- benefit accumulates over training.
- stim main effect on Day 1 (our day 0): n.s. (p=0.2040) -> 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.