Excerpts

13 The latest release of UAM Corpus Tool (version 6.2j, February 2023) does not allow complex within-group comparisons, so we used an earlier release (version 3.3x, August 2021) to do the analysis, though note that version 3.3x reports p value ranges (non significant p > 0.05, significant p < 0.05, highly significant p < 0.02) and does not report effect size.

It also barely failed to reach significance in the Central view condition at a running speed of 8 km/h ( t (11) = 2.666, p = 0.02 uncorrected, with an alpha adjusted to 0.01).

( 2007a ), there was a significant effect of SOA [ F1 (2, 26) = 74.9, η p 2 = 0.811, p < 0.001, F2 (2, 84) = 101.8, η p 2 = 0.703, p < 0.001], an effect of frequency significant by participants and marginally significant by-items [ F1 (1, 13) = 29.1, η p 2 = 0.69, p < 0.02, F2 (1, 42) = 3.4, η p 2 = 0.069, p < 0.08] and no interaction ( F1 < 1, F2 = 1.5).

In the second practice period, however, the larger change score for group B (with reverse stick) compared to group A (with regular stick), just failed to reach significance (i.e., p = 0.020, with α = 0.017), but showed a large effect size ( d = 0.66).

The difference between semantically congruent and incongruent gestures just failed to reach significance [ t (127) =−2.24; p =0.02], No significant differences were found between meaningless configurations and semantically incongruent gestures.

Supportive PTA had a marginally significant positive association with BI ( β = 0.126, p = 0.021).

However, the scalar model showed a slight decrease in model fit (scalar: CFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.049), with a marginally significant chi-square difference test ( p = 0.021).

However, the interaction between group × distractor only approached significance according to our criterion of 0.01, F (7.80, 195.03) = 2.35, p = 0.021, η 2 = 0.09, and the interaction between group × target was not significant, F (3.821, 95.52) = 1.47, p = 0.218.

In older adults, for three categories this revealed significant or close to significance R 2 -values with positive slopes ( fractals , R 2 = 0.31, t -test p = 0.021; manmades , R 2 = 0.38, p = 0.015, pinks , R 2 = 0.22, p = 0.057).

However, results suggest significant effects of housing conditions ( B = 0.191; p = 0.003) and marginally significant effects of training exposure (middle exposure: B = 0.4952; p = 0.0217) on cognitive trajectories.

These differences were highly significant ( p = 0.022 and p = 0.029, respectively).

An ANOVA of the SPEED revealed a marginally significant main effect of emotional face [ F (2, 78) = 4.23, p = 0.023, η p 2 = 0.10], suggesting that the SPEED was lower for happy faces than for fearful and neutral faces.

Nevertheless, a trend toward significance remained at the C3 electrode in the theta band between block 1 (corrected p = 0.024) and block 2 (corrected p = 0.072).

More precisely, we found cognitive abilities being marginally significant ( adjusted p = 0.025) and, along with COVID-19 interest, related to an increased tendency to report true memories.

At a presentation duration of 60 ms, the comparison between the more salient locations and the less salient locations and the comparison between the more salient locations and the background locations at a presentation duration of 240 ms just failed to reach significance under the Bonferroni corrections (60 ms, more salient vs. less salient: t (13) = 2.543, p = 0.025; 240 ms, more salient vs. background: t (13) = 2.653, p = 0.02).

For the olfactory condition the ANOVA indicated a marginally significant main effect of interval [ F (5,60) = 2.76, p = 0.026, η 2 = 0.19].

Family economic status was associated with broader differences: significant or marginally significant variation emerged for Prosocial Values and Interpersonal Skills ( p = 0.028), Emotional Understanding ( p = 0.035), and overall SEC ( p = 0.050).

The same pattern was found for salary increase, but the conditional indirect effect was only marginally significant (interaction: c = −0.22, p = 0.028; −1 SD : cie = 0.11, p = 0.093; 0: cie = 0.04, p = 0.401; +1 SD : cie = −0.02, p = 0.679).

After correction, the time effect was marginally significant, F (1.64, 50.91) = 4.18, p = 0.028, with a partial η 2 of 0.12, reflecting a small-to-medium effect.

Where PD primes featured non-prototypical animacy-semantic role mappings, there was a marginally significant effect of prime-target match, β = −2.33 ( SE = 1.07), z = −2.19, p = 0.029.

In fact, the SiCE was apparent only for pairs containing 1 [ F (1, 115) = 34.06, MSE = 166,254, η 2 p = 0.23], with no evidence of linear modulation (Figure 1C ), and was minimal and marginally significant for pairs without 1 [ F (1, 117) = 3.85, MSE = 32,329, η 2 p = 0.03] (Figure 1D ).

Furthermore, the difference between mean amplitudes for alternate uses ( M = −1.96, SE = 0.25) and common uses was marginally significant ( p = 0.03, d = 0.40).

Planned contrasts comparing TIW within expertise groups, between stimulus instrument categories, showed that pianists had a narrower TIW for piano stimuli than for clarinet stimuli, which approached significance at a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of 0.02, z = 2.5, p = 0.03, and a significantly narrower TIW for piano stimuli than for violin stimuli, z = 2.8, p = 0.01.

The sex-difference on MRT-C performance approached significance in grade 3 [ F (1,122) = 4.61, p = 0.03, η p = 0.03], to the advantage of boys.

The main effect of ethnicity was marginally significant, indicating slightly higher values for white B = –0.32 [–0.61, –0.03] compared to black participants, B = –0.11, p = 0.030.