Let us now denote G S to be the set of all available γ representing combinations of stimuli from S. Sorting the elements of G S with respect to size leads to a monotonic sequence G S ′ representing the ordered stimulation intensities from S without inhibition.
Since use of both SC50 and Smax resulted in imprecise parameters estimation, we incorporated a power function-based stimulation of EPO mRNA by HIF1α with sigmoid factor γ2 and a zero-order stimulation of EPO protein production by EPO mRNA.
Order of stimulation sites was counter-balanced to prevent ordering effects and exact stimulation sites were varied to prevent carryover effects due to spatial summation, local sensitization, or suppression of nociceptors.
The order of stimulation frequencies for the photoactivation experiments was counterbalanced between animals and >3 days of rest were allowed between stimulation sessions to avoid habituation to induced sleep patterns.
The order of stimulation was IL-6, IL-1 β, TNFα, and IL-1 α in descending order.
However, the inverse is not guaranteed: For any finite set of stimuli, small inhibitions may occur which do not change the sequence of order of stimulation, even if the inhibition acts upstream of the merger node.
The order of stimulation was randomised.
The order of stimulation sites was counterbalanced between participants.
Furthermore, the interaction between group and stimulus type was also non-significant (F1,196 = 0.87, NS for sucrose and F1,196 = 0.24, NS for electric shocks), thus confirming that responsiveness to sucrose and shock were unaffected by the order of stimulation.
The order of stimulation conditions followed an ABCABC order and was counterbalanced across subjects.
The order of stimulation (anodal or cathodal) and sham was counterbalanced across sessions and patients.
