Excerpts

Visual features as predictor for concreteness/abstractness just failed to reach significance ( p = 0.051).

The difference between the first and second transfer phases approached significance (Mean Difference = −0.456, p = 0.051), with a Cohen’s d of-1.813, reflecting a large effect size but indicating that this difference was less consistent or reliable compared to the other comparisons ( Table 2 ) ( Figure 5 ). 5 Discussion The present study investigated the impact of implicit and explicit learning on motor task performance across three sessions.

The difference between major and minor music conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

As predicted, memory judgments on items that were primed with happy faces were characterized by a significantly more liberal response bias in familiarity-based decisions; this was the case when the independence correction was applied [ t (36) = 1.746, p < 0.05 (one-tailed)], and a significant trend emerged when uncorrected [ t (36) = 1.671, p < 0.0515 (one-tailed)].

The main effect of exposure duration was practically significant [ F (1, 17) = 4.38, p = 0.0516]; performance was better with the longer than shorter exposure duration.

Post hoc cluster tests within each task revealed a matching, nearly significant cluster of increased activity in the IPS during two-numeral compared to one-numeral trials in the addition task from 131 to 209 ms, p = 0.0516 (10,000) and found no significant differences within the list task at any point (all clusters p > 0.70; 10,000 permutations).

Analyses for midline electrodes revealed a marginally significant effect of Position [ F (1, 17) = 4.37, p = 0.05183] and an interaction of Position × Electrode [ F (3, 51) = 5.46, p < 0.05].

However, since the predicted finding for the recombined combination came close to significance ( p = 0.052) we are reluctant to completely rule out the possibility that the findings reported here also reflect associative memory according to a more stringent definition.

We found no significant differences between the two groups on any of these measures (all p s > 0.25), except for a marginally significant difference in visual ANS RT ( p = 0.052), which was due to faster RTs in the ANS training group compared to the PA training group.

There was a main effect of age on self-efficacy nearing significance, F (1, 59) = 3.93, p = 0.052.

Regarding Final Pitch Span, the main effect of Length was dominant [ F (1, 701.70) = 34.70, p < 0.001], whereas the effect of Group reached only marginal significance ( p = 0.052).

3.2.2 Results 3.2.2.1 Manipulation check A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the power manipulation on participants’ subjective feeling of power was partially significant ( F (1, 598) = 3.80, p = 0.052, ηp 2 = 0.006).

For the vivid imagery visualizer style dimension, the 4-factorial ANOVA showed significant main effects, with F (1, 1030) = 12.56, p < 0.01, for grapheme-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 14.36, p < 0.01, for sound-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 7.47, p < 0.01, and for lexical-gustatory synaesthesia, and a marginally significant effect for sequence-space synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 3.79, p = 0.052.

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on the slopes of the RTs as a function of the binary logarithm of the response set size revealed a main effect of response set ( F 1,16 = 9.17, p = 0.008), a marginally significant effect of ET ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.052), and a marginally significant effect of condition ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.051).

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

The interaction between gender and adiposity was marginally significant [ F (1,81) = 3.88, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.05].

More specifically, an increase in scores of individualism decreased the effect of anxiety on passive-submissive coping style: interaction was marginally significant, F (1,820) = 3.76, β = –0.10, t (848) = –1.94, p = 0.052.

The correlation between the length of the delay and mother’s education approached significance r = 0.452, p = 0.052.

Step 2 led to a marginally significant increase in the variance explained, ΔF (1, 72) = 3.90, p = 0.052.

The direct effect of effort expectancy approached significance (β = 0.126, p = 0.052), suggesting a potential direct promoting effect, although the statistical evidence for this path is weaker than that for other significant paths.

There was also a significant retention interval x misinformation interaction, Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 9.74, p = 0.002, and a picture emotion x retention interval x misinformation interaction that approached significance (see Figure 3 ), Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 5.92, p = 0.052.

( 2009 ) showed a borderline significant increase in signal for the SOdifficult than the SI condition [ t (17) = 2.1, p = 0.052].

In this case, only item 32 showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.12, p = 0.052) with the wish to speak with a psychologist about these issues, indicating that the higher the frequency of thinking about developing cancer, the higher the need to speak with a psychologist (see Table S2.33PSY5a in the Supplementary Material for more details).

When exploring the subsample with data on cognitive performance ( n = 10 control group, n = 9 video game training group, Table 3 ) we found a significant posttest group difference in performance on TMT performance when controlling for habitual video game playing, pretest TMT performance and accounting for sex, with the video game group showing faster performance compared with the control group [ F (1, 19) = 5.06, p = 0.030, η p 2 = 0.103, the covariate of pretest performance, p = 0.034, was significant and sex was close to significance, p = 0.052].

Under the sentence conditions, an rANOVA with these two factors on the accuracy showed significant main effects of scrambling and topicalization [scrambling, F (1,16) = 12, p = 0.0036; topicalization, F (1,16) = 9.5, p = 0.0072], and an interaction between these factors was marginally significant [ F (1,16) = 4.4, p = 0.052].