Sentence examples for suppressive strength from inspiring English sources

4A and 4C illustrate that under lower susceptibility, unless suppressive strength is very high, anger plays a strong, nonlinear role, and suppression becomes counterproductive in many cases.

To avoid conflating nonlinearities arising from increasing suppressive strength and from complementarities, I keep total suppressive strength fixed while varying the proportion given to non-disruptive tactics, for several levels of suppressive strength.

The scales for suppressive strength were chosen so that a reduction of susceptibility produces roughly the same instantaneous change to one's behavior as does another's removal, at full population with maximal transmissibility.

Similarly, locomotion decreased the strength of the suppressive field R S, by a factor of 0.9 ± 0.1.

Locomotion had two main effects: it increased the baseline firing rate, and it reduced the strength of the suppressive field relative to the driving field.

The normalization model allowed us to summarize the effects of locomotion concisely: an increase in baseline activity and a decrease in the relative strength of the divisive suppressive field.

Here R0 is the baseline (spontaneous) firing rate, m and n are exponents, R D and R S are the strengths of driving field and suppressive field, and D d) and S d) are the fractions of the driving field and suppressive field covered by the stimulus (between 0 and 1), which depend on the sizes σ D and σ S of the driving field and suppressive field.

It is generally accepted that Tr cells require activation by the TCR to be suppressive, but the nature of the ligands and strength of TCR interaction required need characterization.

This low signal strength clearly limits the possibility to characterize suppressive interactions, because subtle activity differences between different experimental conditions are of primary interest here.

Importantly, neglect is associated with many negative factors, for example it appears to have a suppressive effect on upper-limb motor recovery (both synergism and strength) especially over the first ten weeks post-stroke (Nijboer et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, after time point 15, it is clear that option a 1 has maintained somewhat the same rate of activation for action preparation, while for option a 2 the preparation activation strength has started to decrease, due to suppression by the preparation for option a 1, via the suppressive link with strength ω 17.