A highly significant interaction Mask x Inversion [ F (1, 29) = 24.92, MSE = 0.020, p < 0.001] revealed that the inversion effect was larger in the unmasked [ t (29) = 15.28, p < 0.001] than in the masked [ t (29) = 10.26, p < 0.001] condition, a result that is in accordance with the holistic prediction.
Excerpts
Conversely, the correlation between each individual’s learning slope and mean threshold value on day 1 of learning was highly significant ( r = −0.91, p < 0.001), which indicates that those who showed a steep learning function (slower learners) started off with a high threshold, whereas those with a flatter learning curve (faster learners) were already close to ceiling performance on the first day of training, as may be seen in Figure 4 .
The results of the multifactor ANOVA showed that the main effect of the within-subjects variable difficulty of questions was highly significant, F (2, 44) = 140.199, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.864.
Specifically, differences were highly significant for grade (χ 2 = 454.81, p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 = 378.18, p < 0.001), and significant for only-child status (χ 2 = 6.86, p < 0.05) and place of origin (χ 2 = 8.66, p < 0.05), as shown in Table 5 .
Emotional value had a highly significant positive effect on store loyalty ( p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H6b.
A separate repeated-measures ANOVA for fixation count (log-transformed AOI 7) showed a highly significant effect of post type [ F (1,151) = 102.503, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.404], indicating that 40.4% of variance in fixation count can be attributed to whether a post is sponsored or organic.
Highly significant affect category main effects were found for both valence [ F (2,44) = 141, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.87] and arousal [ F (2,44) = 51.2, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.7].
Although figurativeness also appears as a significant factor in this full analysis ( b = 0.046, p < 0.05), a highly significant interaction between language and figurativeness ( b = −0.050, p < 0.001) motivates a split of the data naturally presented in this paper in each of the two experiments.
Results indicate that together MSR and TTR at T1 explain 41% of the variance within CMAS at T2 ( R 2 = 0.47, F (2, 343) = 151.5, p < 0.001) with highly significant contributions from both indicators (β TTR = 0.47, p < 0.001 and β NSR = 0.30, p < 0.001).
One-way ANOVAs by school year found highly significant increases with age on all variables, using the Welch robust statistic, p < 0.001 in each case.
Differences between the post-treatment and waitlist groups on PTSD symptom scales were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with moderate to large effect sizes on changes in both the frequency and severity of symptoms.
This comparison was highly significant (McNemar χ 2 (1) = 2.889; p < 0.001).
Among them, the social value shows a highly significant positive effect (β = 0.520, p < 0.001), followed by the economic value (β = 0.486, p < 0.001).
Crucially, a highly significant Group × Modality interaction was observed [ F (2, 697.78) = 6.68, p = 0.001], confirming that native speakers and learners employ distinct strategies in modulating global pitch range to signal sentence function.
However, the interaction effect turned out to be highly significant [ F (1,15) = 18.74, p = 0.001, η_p^2 = 0.55].
This association is positive and highly significant on the within-level (β = 0.54, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001).
Test–retest repeatability correlation coefficients for the two domain scores were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
However, using a Bonferroni correction and corresponding alpha of 0.001, lifetime history of major depressive disorder and persistent depressive disorder was the only disorders significantly correlated with misophonia severity, and the correlation with current OCD was marginally significant ( p = 0.001).
For tapping rate, the triple interaction Congruency × Language × Phase was highly significant [ F (1, 61) = 16.15, p < 0.001].
The adjusted mean difference was 25.0 points (95% CI [21.5, 28.5]), with a highly significant group effect, F (1, 64) = 50.12, p < 0.001, and a large effect size (partial η 2 = 0.439).
While this confirms a minor confoundment, the effect of MA on PU only decreased slightly and remained highly significant ( β = 0.205, p < 0.001).
T-test showed that Cohen’s d is 0.341, which exceeds the level of 0.2 and is highly significant ( t = 7.136, two-sided p < 0.001).
novel pseudowords), were highly significant (contrast 7: x = 31, y = 0, z = -23, t (33) = 3.25, k = 207 voxels, p < 0.001; contrast 8: x = 31, y = 4, z = -19, t (32) = 3.39, k = 116 voxels, p < 0.001.
When this categorical data is analyzed we find a highly significant relationship between types of studio audience and field study OAR co-occurring, χ 2 (2,306) = 27.790, p < 0.001, with a moderately strong relationship (Cramer’s V = 0.301).
Priming and copying accuracy The full-null model comparison for the copying accuracy of relevant actions was clearly significant ( χ 2 = 22.997, df = 5, p ≤ 0.001), confirming that our test predictors had an effect.