In this paper, we prove uniform bounds for $\operatorname {GL}(3)\times \operatorname {GL}(2) \ L$-functions in the $\operatorname {GL}(2)$ spectral aspect and the t aspect by a delta method. More precisely, let $\phi $ be a Hecke–Maass cusp form for $\operatorname {SL}(3,\mathbb {Z})$ and f a Hecke–Maass cusp form for $\operatorname {SL}(2,\mathbb {Z})$ with the spectral parameter $t_f$. Then for $t\in \mathbb {R}$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, we have

$$\begin{align*}L(1/2+it,\phi\times f) \ll_{\phi,\varepsilon} (t_f+|t|)^{27/20+\varepsilon}. \end{align*}$$

$L(1/2+it,\phi \times f)$

$|t|-t_f \gg (|t|+t_f)^{3/5+\varepsilon }$

The aim of this study was to assess the error made by violating the assumption of stationarity when using Fourier analysis for spectral decomposition of heart period power. A comparison was made between using Fourier and Wavelet analysis (the latter being a relatively new method without the assumption of stationarity). Both methods were compared separately for stationary and nonstationary segments. An ambulatory device was used to measure the heart period data of 40 young and healthy participants during a psychological stress task and during periods of rest. Surprisingly small differences (<1%) were found between the results of both methods, with differences being slightly larger for the nonstationary segments. It is concluded that both methods perform almost identically for computation of heart period power values. Thus, the Wavelet method is only superior for analyzing heart period data when additional analyses in the time-frequency domain are required.

Parvocellular (P-) and magnocellular (M-) cells in the marmoset LGN can receive prominent rod input up to relatively high illuminance levels (Kremers et al., 1997b). In the present paper, we quantify rod and cone input strengths under different retinal illuminance levels. The stimulus was based on the so-called “silent substitution” method. The activities of P- and M-cells of dichromatic animals were recorded extracellularly. We were able to adequately describe the response amplitudes and phases by a vector summation of rod and cone signals. At low retinal illuminance levels, the cells' responses were determined by rod and cone inputs. With increasing illuminances the strength of the cone input increased relative to the rod strength. But, we often found significant rod inputs up to illuminances equivalent to 700 td in the human eye or more. Rod input strength was more pronounced in cells with receptive fields at large retinal eccentricities. The phase differences between rod and cone inputs suggest that the rod signals lag about 45 ms behind the cone signals.