Figure 3c(green curve) indicates that for all values of mean synaptic transmission, the variance isgreater when synapses are facilitating.
As the variables are independent, we get, for the total number of transmissions, the variance: var T | H 1 = ∑ i = 0 K − 1 1 − ν i ν i (26).
Furthermore, the changes in activity in these brain regions are related to reductions in the physical and emotional aspects of the pain experience, indicating that variation in endogenous opioid transmission relates to variances in placebo effects across individuals.
Few studies however, have explicitly examined how conditions experienced during infection may affect the variance in transmission potential among individual hosts.
However, at variance with infection transmission models, in which infection transmission is crucial, there is no interaction between individuals, so their disease states are independent of each other.
The host line always explained a major part of the variance in transmission or infection intensity, with more differences among lines for the transmission (four non overlapping groups) than for infection intensity (three overlapping groups).
It can be observed that the expected transmission loss increases as variance decreases.
The pass loss component is where is the Euclidean distance between two transmission ends, while the variance of the Rayleigh fading equals to 1 in our simulations.
Moreover, the Chi-squared distribution, χ2, is used to account for the reflected transmission paths and depth variance errors which are also proportional to range of the nodes where θ is the degree of freedom and the mean and variance are set to 1 and 4, respectively.
We examined how the nutritional state of hosts may affect the variance in transmission potential.
