We consider the points a i ( 1 ≤ i ≤ n ) in the interval [ 0, x 0 ] such that ( a i, k j, ε ) ∈ Λ.
In a similar manner, we consider the points a i ( n + 1 ≤ i ≤ n + ϱ ) in the interval [ x 1, 1 ] such that ( a i, k j, ε ) ∈ Λ.
Intuitively, we consider the points V to be in close spatial proximity if the radius of MB V) is small enough.
For neurons whose firing rate saturated before the end of the motion epoch, we considered the point of saturation to be the time at which the maximum firing rate was achieved.
A relative risk of less than 1 would favour the statin treated population; we considered the point estimate of the relative risk to be significant at the P<0.05 level if the confidence interval did not include the value 1. Heterogeneity was analysed using the Cochran Q test and I statistics as a complement to the Q test.
Finally, we considered the points of major contribution to condition differences as absolute individual Z values, corresponding to global Z = 2.57, which depending on the individual's number of point-to-point comparisons (i.e., the number of dipole supporting points, in proportion to head size), ranged from Z = 3.48 to Z = 3.68.
To derive the N-point REFFT, we consider the N-point RFFT that constitutes Q P-point RFFTs at the first stage and P Q-point RFFTs at the second stage.
We also consider the point of view of the study investigator, who can only see the observed results of the study.
I think perhaps it is also important that we consider the Ukrainian point of view here.
