The idea then is to select the interpretations that minimize the distance between the models of IC and the models of the belief profile E. Formally, this can be expressed as follows: So, the distance is symmetric and, if two interpretations are identical, the distance is 0.[2] Two steps are needed to find the models of IC that minimize the distances to the belief profile.
In any case, our finding that OCP3 is pivotal for JA -and NPR1-dependent induced defenses, along with the observation of a degree of genetic epistasis between OCP3 and NPR1, favors the interpretation that the former may be controlling critical functional aspects of the later at least in the cytosol.
Given the greater interest in the trapped rat shown by openers and the lack of aggressive interactions between opener pairs, the authors favor the interpretation that rats open the restrainer door in order to terminate the trapped rat's distress.
Alignment to the additional strains supports all but one of the 95 insertions and deletions identified between N16961 and N16961*, consistent with the interpretation that the discordant positions correspond to errors in the reference sequence.
We have revised the sentence to read "Given the greater interest in the trapped rat shown by openers and the lack of aggressive interactions between opener pairs, the authors favor the interpretation that rats open the restrainer door in order to terminate the trapped rat's distress".
Thus, our results are statistically significant and in line with the interpretation that positive associations between variables related to CNS computational task-performance (in our case associative olfactory learning) and longevity are moderate.
Alternatively, acknowledging the contradictory findings in the field with respect to ups and down regulation of SNCA levels in PD brains [12], [13], [34] [36] one cannot exclude the interpretation that the association between the 3' SNPs and sporadic PD is the result of lower SNCA expression levels.
Very similar data from two independent studies and statistical difference with no overlap of 95% CI support the interpretation that the difference between the two cities/cohorts is real.
This fact also strengthens the interpretation that the differences found between the irradiated mice and controls were due to the ionizing radiation exposure.
Early efforts attempted to distinguish between interpretations that were rooted in sensory (attention) versus motor (intention) perspectives [59], [60], [61], [62].
