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>
69 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
69 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
==============================================================================
|
|
VARIATION: matched_current_d0_3
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
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
|
|
control (stim=0): Electrode-Box-A2
|
|
N = 6 rats, 24 sessions raw day coverage: treat 0..3, control 0..3
|
|
(equal day coverage over this window)
|
|
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
FULL MODEL SUMMARY -- fitlme
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Linear mixed-effects model fit by ML
|
|
|
|
Model information:
|
|
Number of observations 24
|
|
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
|
|
185.35 192.42 -86.676 173.35
|
|
|
|
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
|
|
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} 16.867 4.4554 3.7856 20 0.0011608
|
|
{'day' } 6.3667 2.2049 2.8875 20 0.0091051
|
|
{'stim' } -8.9667 6.3009 -1.4231 20 0.17013
|
|
{'day:stim' } 10.2 3.1182 3.2711 20 0.0038217
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
7.5728 26.161
|
|
1.7673 10.966
|
|
-22.11 4.1769
|
|
3.6955 16.705
|
|
|
|
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
|
|
Group: rat (6 Levels)
|
|
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 2.9163
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
0.43116 19.725
|
|
|
|
Group: Error
|
|
Name Estimate Lower Upper
|
|
{'Res Std'} 8.5397 6.1599 11.839
|
|
|
|
|
|
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
stim x day (interaction) t(20)= 3.27 F(1)= 10.700 p=0.003822 p=0.004244 (df=18)
|
|
day (learning) t(20)= 2.89 F(1)= 8.337 p=0.009105 p=0.009807 (df=18)
|
|
stim (main, window start) t(20)= -1.42 F(1)= 2.025 p=0.1701 p=0.1703 (df=20)
|
|
interaction 95% CI: [+3.70, +16.70]
|
|
HONEST LME (per-animal random slope, day|rat): interaction F(1,9.8)=9.76, p=0.01107
|
|
(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=0.003822, slope diff=+10.20)
|
|
Paper (N=24): interaction t(227)=2.68, F(1)=7.12, p=0.008.
|