marginally significantp = 0.089
In contrast, the effect of on false alarm rates was marginally significant ( F (1, 59) = 2.99, p = 0.089, η 2 = 0.05).
In contrast, the effect of on false alarm rates was marginally significant ( F (1, 59) = 2.99, p = 0.089, η 2 = 0.05).
Lastly, while the false alarm rate was significantly higher in the word recognition task, it only approached marginal significance in the picture endorsement task.
Nevertheless, the main effect of language and the interaction between language and retrieval cue did not reach statistical significance ( ps > 0.05).