marginally significantp = 0.099
Similarly, the group trained on inanimate categories showed significant improvement for inanimate categories (13/16 participants, t(15) = 4.30, p = 0.0006), while no improvement was seen for animate categories (t(15) = 0.59, p = 0.56); here, we observed a marginally significant interaction effect (F(1, 15) = 3.09, p = 0.099).