Barely Significant
← all excerpts

A new toolbox to distinguish the sources of spatial memory error.

J Vis · 2020 · PMC7726590 · PMID 33289797

2
hedged sentences
0.0615
closest p · 1.2× alpha
0.1000
boldest claim

The sentences

showed a trendp = 0.0615so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)
Paired-sample t tests revealed that parameters α, β, and γ had significantly smaller recovery errors when stimulus constraints were used ( p < 10 −10 ), while σ only showed a trend effect ( p = 0.0615), but absolute recovery errors were significantly smaller for σ and γ ( p = 0.0071, p = 9.6457 × 10 −8 ) but not α and β ( p = 0.4405, p = 0.0610).

also in 53,322 other papers

weakly significantp > .1so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)
■ There was a significant interaction of delay and irrelevant information for guessing ( F (1, 144) = 4.0163, p = 0.0469), although it was only weakly significant and was due to greater guessing in the ignore condition. ■ There were no other interactions ( p > .1), suggesting that ignore and update trials both affected imprecision and misbinding similarly.

also in 1,387 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.