marginal significancep < 0.05
Both for behavioral and ERP data, main and interaction effects that reached statistical or marginal significance levels ( p < 0.05 or p < 0.08, respectively) in comparisons of interest are reported.
Both for behavioral and ERP data, main and interaction effects that reached statistical or marginal significance levels ( p < 0.05 or p < 0.08, respectively) in comparisons of interest are reported.
In the second analysis, focused on data from the mixed stream condition, the ANOVA showed that the main effect of word type reached a marginally statistically significant level, F (1,16) = 4.111, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.204, pw = 0.478.
Behavior results revealed reliable signs of SL for all the streams, even though differences across stream conditions failed to reach significance.
It is also important to note that although the 2-AFC differences between high-and low-TP words failed to reach statistical significance in the SL tasks performed under implicit and explicit conditions, in subsequent studies the authors found reliable signs of SL in the 2-AFC task performed under implicit conditions but, surprisingly, only for the low-TP words.
the unmixed low-TP condition in the latter, suggesting, in both cases, facilitative processing of the mixed over the other stream conditions; (v) additionally, the neural data revealed a length of exposure effect in the N100 component, indexed by a larger amplitude in the second half than in the first half of the SL tasks performed under implicit conditions, regardless of the type of stream, suggesting that participants were able to extract the regularities embedded in the speech streams as exposure unfolded as expected; (vi) a marginally significant word type effect was observed in the N100 component for the mixed stream condition, with high-TP words eliciting larger amplitudes than low-TP words; (vii) although direct comparisons of neural responses between SL tasks were limited to the mixed condition, the separate analyses for the implicit an