Our hypothesis of state -
dependent affect regulation can be represented nicely by a TAR (2,1,1) model (Tong & Lim, 1980), which is based on two AR (1) processes; at each occasion, one of these processes generates the data.
Not exact matches
In one pathway described from larvae, the fat body - specific down -
regulation of either the Slimfast (Slif) amino acid transporter or the Target of Rapamycin (TOR) nutrient - sensing pathway
affects systemic growth, suggesting that a hitherto unidentified amino acid -
dependent signal (s) is secreted by the fat body for proper growth control [8].
These modifications of p53 are believed to fine tune p53 -
dependent gene
regulation and cell fate decisions by
affecting p53 protein stability, DNA binding affinity and interactions between p53 and other transcription cofactors.
As discussed in the NPRM, parent PLUS loan applicants and their
dependent students would be
affected by these final
regulations.
We argue that the autoregressive parameter may be state -
dependent, for example, if the strength of
affect regulation depends on the intensity of
affect experienced.
Next, we discuss the TAR (2,1,1) model (Tong & Lim, 1980), in which a person has two inertia parameters, so that
affect regulation can be state -
dependent.
In conclusion, we note that the TAR model was clearly preferable to an AR model for these data, since
affect regulation was state -
dependent for most of the individuals in the sample and a multilevel AR model would misrepresent the underlying regulatory process.