Excerpts

The compatibility effect in RT was larger with marginal significance when the preceding trial type was incompatible compared to compatible, t (19) = 1.860, p = 0.079, d = 0.299 ( Figure 3A ).

In the first time window (400-600 ms), only a four-way interaction between condition, grammaticality, hemisphere, and anteriority was close-to-significant (F (2, 46) = 3.2, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.12) in the lateral analysis.

The statistical results of mean accuracy revealed a significant main effect of radical markings [ F (1, 38) = 9.45, p = 0.004, ηp 2 = 0.20], a marginally significant main effect of stroke order animations [ F (1, 38) = 3.27, p = 0.079, ηp 2 = 0.08] and a significant main effect of testing time [ F (1, 38) = 106.04, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.74].

The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (2,87) = 2.609, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.057].

The between-subjects effect of age was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.141, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.023, such that older children walked with lower normalized velocity than younger children.

Second, the main effect of condition was marginally significant [ F (2,76) = 2.632, p = 0.079, post hoc power 0.509] ( Figure 6B ).

Second, we expected this difference to be larger in male than female observers and therefore we compared the difference between threatening minus neutral male body expressions between male and female observers which yielded a marginally significant difference ( t (24) = 1.454, p = 0.079, one-tailed).

The last row in Table 5 shows that the three second-order polynomial terms are marginally significant ( F = 2.29, p = 0.08).

The residual variances for the high level measures were uncorrelated, although e2↔e3 was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

As can be seen Table 6 , the results showed that the product term of the scenario and the attribution for the old target's behavior was marginally significant (β = −0.15, p = 0.08).

The main effect of face race approached significance, F (1, 48) = 3.28, p < 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.06, where same-race faces were matched faster than other-face races.

We found a marginally significant interaction between session and phase [ F (1, 14) = 3.716, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.21].

Additionally, the effect of reference class totals only approached significance, F (1,231) = 3.12, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.01 [Wald C 2 (1, N = 236) = 3.12, p = 0.08, OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.04].

Between both groups there was a nearly significant difference in the post hoc comparison ( M diff = 1.59, SEM = 0.61, p = 0.08).

Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that participants with marginal significance rated robots as more eerie after Interaction I ( M = 3.25, SD = 0.52) than after Interaction III ( M = 3.11, SD = 0.6), p = 0.08.

We found a marginally statistically significant main effect of embodiment with probability p = 0.08 (see Figure 7 ).

ANOVAs performed for each odor revealed a marginally significant increase in pleasantness for leather [ F (1,39) = 3.22, p = 0.08] and significant increases in pleasantness for the blank pen, lilac, and shampoo odors [ F s (1,39) = 25.45, 7.2, 5.47; p s < 0.001, 0.01, 0.05; η 2 s = 0.39, 0.15, 0.12, respectively; see Figure 1A ].

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

The ANOVA revealed a nearly significant Speaker main effect ( F (1, 150) = 3.11, p = 0.08) and Speaker × Age interaction ( F (2, 150) = 2.72, p = 0.07).

Although there were no statistically significant differences between users and non-users for the four scaffolding measures, the emotional-verbal comparison approached significance, F (1,102) = 3.14, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.03.

For the post-silence events, only the DM exposure group demonstrated slower RT for Block 6 in comparison to the surrounding exposure blocks, even if this learning score fell short of significance, F (1, 45) = 3.17, p = 0.08.

There was a marginal significance of the interaction effect between Switch Type and Language [ β = 0.37, SE β = 0.21, χ 2 (1) = 3.07, p = 0.080].

We find a marginally significant relationship between identification and performance ( b = 11.53, p = 0.08 two-sided; note that as our hypothesis was directed, one-sided tests resulting in significance on the 5% level could also have been applied).

A marginally significant main effect of target, F (1,48) = 3.13, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.40, showed that participants tended to rate the truthful target as more deceptive ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.55) than the lying target ( M = 3.40, SD = 1.19).

Post-hoc tests controlling for multiple testing found that speakers show a significant inverse relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p < 0.005) and recipients show a marginally significant direct relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p = 0.08).