Stimulus-response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation.

Mem Cognit · 2011 · PMC3205272 · PMID 21671105

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0520

closest p · 1.0× alpha

0.0800

boldest claim

The sentences

did not quite reach significancep = .052so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

As above, the main effects of Format match, F (1, 34) = 89.2, p < .001, and of Congruency, F (1, 34) = 51.3, p < .001, were significant, although the Format match × Congruency interaction did not quite reach significance, F (1, 34) = 4.06, p = .052 (although it was in the same direction as above).

also in 350 other papers

approaching significancep = .06so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Importantly, all three planned comparisons were significant in the Picture Test-format condition [(1) t (31) = 3.91, p < .001; (2) t (31) = 2.44, p < .05; (3) t (31) = 4.08, p < .001], and the first two planned comparisons were significant in the Word Test-format condition [(1) t (31) = 1.83, p < .05; (2) t (31) = 2.29, p < .05], with the third comparison approaching significance, t (31) = 1.59, p = .06.

also in 2,640 other papers

approached significancep = .08so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

The 2 × 2 × 2 (Congruency × Format match × Participant group) ANOVA on subtractive priming showed a significant interaction between Congruency and Participant group, F (1, 34) = 5.81, p < .05, and an interaction between Format match and Participant group that approached significance, F (1, 34) = 3.27, p = .08.

also in 8,237 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.