Sculptors, Architects, and Painters Conceive of Depicted Spaces Differently.

Cogn Sci · 2018 · PMC5873447 · PMID 28656679

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0001

closest p · 0.0× alpha

0.0700

boldest claim

The sentences

highly significantp < .0001actually significant

In support of this pattern, within‐group comparisons yielded a highly significant difference between use of flat geometry versus materiality indicators in painters ( F (1, 120) = 22.36, p < .0001), and to a lesser degree in sculptors ( F (1, 120) = 5.6, p < .05) and controls ( F (1, 120) = 6.93, p < .05), but not in architects ( F (1, 120) = 2.32, p = .13) .

also in 132,142 other papers

almost reached significancep = .056so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

The results almost reached significance ( F (3, 120) = 2.6, p = .056).

also in 321 other papers

approached significancep = .069so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

However, a GLMM cross‐group analysis for the use of “back” approached significance ( F (3, 120) = 2.452, p = .069), mainly driven by painters versus architects ( t = 2.49, df = 120, p = .084).

also in 8,237 other papers

a trend toward significancep = .07so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

The difference between painters and controls showed a trend toward significance (χ2 = 3.14, p = .07), and the proportion of sculptors who requested for a clarification was numerically between painters and architects (without significant differences).

also in 3,729 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.