Barely Significant
← all excerpts

Good exemplars of natural scene categories elicit clearer patterns than bad exemplars but not greater BOLD activity.

PLoS One · 2013 · PMC3608650 · PMID 23555588

2
hedged sentences
0.0680
closest p · 1.4× alpha
0.0680
boldest claim

The sentences

marginally significantp = 0.068so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)
Accurate responses were significantly faster for good images than bad images (892 ms and 1028 ms respectively; t(8) = 8.82, p <0.001), and this effect was significant across all the categories (t(8) = 8.53, p <0.001 for beaches; t(8) = 6.27, p <0.001 for forests; t(8) = 4.42, p <0.01 for highways; t(8) = 5.2, p <0.001 for mountains and t(8) = 2.58, p <0.05 for offices) except for city streets in which the difference was marginally significant (t(8) = 2.10, p = 0.068).

also in 26,082 other papers

failed to reach significanceno p-value reported
The percent signal change was significantly higher for bad exemplars than good exemplars in PPA (t(7) = 4.34, p <0.01; see Figure 9 ) but failed to reach significance in RSC (t <1) and V1 (t<1).

also in 4,113 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.