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: unmerge_d0_5
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
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, 36 sessions raw day coverage: treat 0..5, control 0..5
|
|
(equal day coverage over this window)
|
|
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
FULL MODEL SUMMARY -- fitlme
|
|
==============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Linear mixed-effects model fit by ML
|
|
|
|
Model information:
|
|
Number of observations 36
|
|
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
|
|
289.66 299.16 -138.83 277.66
|
|
|
|
Fixed effects coefficients (95% CIs):
|
|
Name Estimate SE tStat DF pValue
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} 12.524 5.2775 2.3731 32 0.023816
|
|
{'day' } 9.8571 1.4772 6.6729 32 1.5706e-07
|
|
{'stim' } -3.0159 7.4635 -0.40408 32 0.68884
|
|
{'day:stim' } 5.3619 2.089 2.5667 32 0.015149
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
1.7739 23.274
|
|
6.8482 12.866
|
|
-18.219 12.187
|
|
1.1067 9.6172
|
|
|
|
Random effects covariance parameters (95% CIs):
|
|
Group: rat (6 Levels)
|
|
Name1 Name2 Type Estimate
|
|
{'(Intercept)'} {'(Intercept)'} {'std'} 4.8527
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Upper
|
|
1.7069 13.796
|
|
|
|
Group: Error
|
|
Name Estimate Lower Upper
|
|
{'Res Std'} 10.703 8.3104 13.785
|
|
|
|
|
|
effect t(df) / F(df1) p (resid) Satterthwaite: p (df)
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
stim x day (interaction) t(32)= 2.57 F(1)= 6.588 p=0.01515 p=0.0155 (df=30)
|
|
day (learning) t(32)= 6.67 F(1)= 44.528 p=1.571e-07 p=2.162e-07 (df=30)
|
|
stim (main, window start) t(32)= -0.40 F(1)= 0.163 p=0.6888 p=0.6906 (df=19)
|
|
interaction 95% CI: [+1.11, +9.62]
|
|
HONEST LME (per-animal random slope, day|rat): interaction F(1,6.0)=3.02, p=0.1331
|
|
(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=0.01515, slope diff=+5.36)
|
|
Paper (N=24): interaction t(227)=2.68, F(1)=7.12, p=0.008.
|