The timing and magnitude of Stroop interference and facilitation in monolinguals and bilinguals.

Biling (Camb Engl) · 2013 · PMC3590568 · PMID 23483406

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0600

closest p · 1.2× alpha

0.0900

boldest claim

The sentences

a strong trendp = .06so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

There was a strong trend towards a significant difference in the peak interference latency between L1 Chinese and L2 Chinese bilinguals ( t (30.5) = 1.98, p = .06) such that the majority of L1 Chinese bilinguals showed peak interference effects at the 0 ms SOA, whereas the peak interference effects of the L2 Chinese bilinguals were more evenly spread over the –200 ms and 0 ms SOAs.

also in 5,725 other papers

a statistical trendp = .08so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Reduced facilitation effects also occurred in the high-proficiency L2 English bilinguals ( M = 9 ms, SE = 12 ms) compared to the low-proficiency group ( M = 44 ms, SE = 19 ms), though this was only a statistical trend ( t (106.4) = 1.72, p = .08).

also in 2,798 other papers

a weak trendp = .09so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

A five-way (SOA) ANOVA on the control RTs only with language as a between-subjects factor showed no main effects of SOA or language group (all F s< 1), although there was a weak trend of an interaction ( F (4,143) = 2.02, p = .09).

also in 1,404 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.