"... In PAGE 1: ...Table 3D models Table3 D scenes Table 3D animations get list of available 3D models load and save 3D scenes save 3D animation sequences User interface amp; rendering of anatomic scenes Fig. 1.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ...1 General sequencing and tree estimation results All ILD tests showed no significant incongruence between any of the partitions. All individual genes contained informative indels; the number of informative indels are shown in Table2 . All indels supported clades with high maximum parsimony boostrap (MP BP) support and did not contribute support to any weakly supported clades.... In PAGE 12: ... All indels supported clades with high maximum parsimony boostrap (MP BP) support and did not contribute support to any weakly supported clades. The aligned length of each gene partition is shown in Table2 . A 204 base pair (bp) insertion in all canid species in GHR was removed from the alignment, as was a 219 bp insertion in the red panda in RHO1.... In PAGE 12: ... In these cases, sequence was not included in the final data matrix (Table 1). For all partitions, multiple most parsimonious trees were obtained ( Table2 ). Both the GHR and complete data set MP searches were stopped due to computer memory constraints ... In PAGE 13: ... 12 retention index (RI) are reported for each partition in Table2 . Individual gene topologies (MP BP) contained polytomies but did not differ significantly from each other or from the concatenated total data MP BP topology.... In PAGE 13: ... Differences between trees were only found in areas of weak support; no hard incongruencies (opposing topologies supported by 80% bootstrap support) were observed. All maximum likelihood searches yielded a single most likely tree (log likelihoods in Table2 ), except FES, which recovered six equally likely trees. All FES trees were identical in topology and all parameters except the transition:transversion (Ti:Tv) ratio, Ti:Tv kappa, and gamma shape.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... We have tested our system with several 3D models. Table1 compares the performance in two cases: (i) rendering seamlessly on a tiled display wall using four projectors and four graphics processors with distributed data and (ii) traditional rendering using a single projector and a single processor. As can be seen, the performance in these two cases is very close.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... Note that V P depends on P a o 2 and P a co 2 while V C depends on P B co 2 . Table7 at the end of this paper gives parameter values used in simulation studies of the model #281#29-#283#29 #28unless otherwise noted#29. 2.... In PAGE 11: ...11 and where A 1 = a 2 +a 3 #16 V; A 2 = a 3 #16 x #16 V x ; B 1 = b 2 +b 3 #16 V; B 2 = b 3 #16 y #16 V y ; C 1 = c 2 ; C 2 = a 3 #16 x #16 V z : Clearly jP#28i!#29j 2 ,jQ#28i!#29j 2 will take a complicated form from which it is di#0Ecult to extract a simple condition for stability.However, we can study the stability for parameter values which are physiological meaningful #28 Table7 #29. The expression F#28!#29=jP#28i!#29j 2 ,jQ#28i!#29j 2 is a six degree polynomial of the form F#28!#29 = ! 6 +k 1 ! 4 +k 2 ! 2 +k 3 : Now, we let ! 2 = v and de#0Cne ^ F#28v#29=v 3 +k 1 v 2 +k 2 v+k 3 : We #0Cnd, for our parameters, that this cubic has two negative roots and one positiveroot v o so that ! o = p v o is the only #28simple#29 positiverootofF#28!#29 #28see Figure 1#29.... In PAGE 12: ... We compare the two- dimensional model with the peripheral control only. Using the same parameter values #28from the three-dimensional model parameters, Table7 #29 we see from Table 2 that a model with the peripheral control only is much more unstable than the three-dimensional model incorporating both a peripheral control and central control. Note that for normal control gain the two-dimensional model predicted instabilityata#1Cmultiplier of 1.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... In the first survey, fully reported in [6], several test distances were measured both on the digital model and through classical photogrammetry based on a metric camera, revealing some dimensional errors. The main deviations between photogrammetry and 3D model are synthesized in Table1 . This survey has shown that the height of the model (d1, d2, d3) and the distance between the knees (d12), are not correct.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... The locations of the event clusters are shown in Figure 4. Table1 indicates the number of events and the median value of the number of stations in each cluster. Also indicated are the median values of the open azimuth (i.... In PAGE 6: ...ach cluster. We use phase travel time data from the EHB bulletin (Engdahl et al., 1998). An overall summary for each of the 15 event clusters is presented in Table1 . Location error and rms misfit for each cluster are presented.... In PAGE 8: ... For each cluster we located events using its regional 1D model exactly as has been done with the 1D global model. The resulting average error in location for the 15 clusters in Table1 is 16 km, which is slightly smaller than for the global 1D model (18 km), but still significantly worse than obtained with SR2002 (8.5 km).... ..."