From: Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck_at_gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:04:24 -0400

R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Thu 10 Jun 2010 - 12:06:44 GMT

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:04:24 -0400

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Joris Meys <jorismeys_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> This is only valid in case your X matrix is exactly the same, thus

The poster did not give a full explanation so the best that can be done without getting into an extended question and answer is to make some assumptions, show the result and hope that the assumptions are sufficiently close that the poster can tweak it.

That the X matrices are assumed to be the same was clearly stated already and seems not to be some new revelation. Ditto for the other comments below.

> when you have an experiment with multiple response variables (i.e.

*> paired response data). When the data for both models come from a
**> different experiment, it ends here.
**>
**> You also assume that y1 and y2 are measured in the same scale, and can
**> be substracted. If you take two models, one with response Y in meters
**> and one with response Y in centimeters, all others equal, your method
**> will find the models "significantly different" whereas they are
**> exactly the same except for a scaling parameter. If we're talking two
**> different responses, the substraction of both responses doesn't even
**> make sense.
**>
**> The hypothesis you test is whether there is a significant relation
**> between your predictors and the difference of the "reward" response
**> and the "punishment" response. If that is the hypothesis of interest,
**> the difference can be interpreted in a sensible way, AND both the
**> reward learning curve and the punishment learning curve are measured
**> simultaneously for every participant in the study, you can
**> intrinsically compare both models by modelling the difference of the
**> response variable.
**>
**> As this is not the case (learning curves from punishment and reward
**> can never be made up simultaneously), your approach is invalid.
**>
**> Cheers
**> Joris
**>
**> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Gabor Grothendieck
**> <ggrothendieck_at_gmail.com> wrote:
**>> We need to define what it means for these models to be the same or
**>> different. With the usual lm assumptions suppose for i=1, 2 (the two
**>> models) that:
**>>
**>> y1 = a1 + X b1 + error1
**>> y2 = a2 + X b2 + error2
**>>
**>> which implies the following which also satisfies the usual lm assumptions:
**>>
**>> y1-y2 = (a1-a2) + X(b1-b2) + error
**>>
**>> Here X is a matrix, a1 and a2 are scalars and all other elements are
**>> vectors. We say the models are the "same" if b1=b2 (but allow the
**>> intercepts to differ even if the models are the "same").
**>>
**>> If y1 and y2 are as in the built in anscombe data frame and x3 and x4
**>> are the x variables, i.e. columns of X, then:
**>>
**>>> fm1 <- lm(y1 - y2 ~ x3 + x4, anscombe)
**>>> # this model reduces to the following if b1 = b2
**>>> fm0 <- lm(y1 - y2 ~ 1, anscombe)
**>>> anova(fm0, fm1)
**>> Analysis of Variance Table
**>>
**>> Model 1: y1 - y2 ~ 1
**>> Model 2: y1 - y2 ~ x3 + x4
**>> Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F)
**>> 1 10 20.637
**>> 2 8 18.662 2 1.9751 0.4233 0.6687
**>>
**>> so we cannot reject the hypothesis that the models are the "same".
**>>
**>>
**>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Or Duek <orduek_at_gmail.com> wrote:
**>>> Hi,
**>>> I would like to compare to regression models - each model has a different
**>>> dependent variable.
**>>> The first model uses a number that represents the learning curve for reward.
**>>> The second model uses a number that represents the learning curve from
**>>> punishment stimuli.
**>>> The first model is significant and the second isn't.
**>>> I want to compare those two models and show that they are significantly
**>>> different.
**>>> How can I do that?
**>>> Thank you.
**>>>
**>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
**>>>
**>>> ______________________________________________
**>>> R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
**>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
**>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
**>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
**>>>
**>>
**>> ______________________________________________
**>> R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
**>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
**>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
**>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
**>>
**>
**>
**>
**> --
**> Joris Meys
**> Statistical consultant
**>
**> Ghent University
**> Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
**> Department of Applied mathematics, biometrics and process control
**>
**> tel : +32 9 264 59 87
**> Joris.Meys_at_Ugent.be
**> -------------------------------
**> Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php
**>
*

R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Thu 10 Jun 2010 - 12:06:44 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by
the discipline of
statistics at the
University of Newcastle,
Australia.

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 10 Jun 2010 - 12:40:28 GMT.

*
Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help.
Please read the posting
guide before posting to the list.
*