Excerpts

However, Duration remained a significant predictor of Strategy LC even after accounting for Action LC, β = 0.14, t (101) = 2.83, p < 0.01, with BSpan still being a marginally significant predictor of Strategy LC, β = 0.11, t (101) = 1.94, p = 0.056.

Further, a Group × Sex × Trial interaction approached significance ( F = 3.7, p = 0.056, linear trend), such that male DNC and HD had similar learning over trials, while female HD actually had greater learning over trials than female DNC.

The main effect of reason for group membership was only marginally significant, F (2, 281) = 2.91, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.01.

Normative arousal ratings indicated that positive (mean = 5.24) and neutral (mean = 4.31) images were significantly different from one another in arousal (b = 0.926, t 93 = 4.112, Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.377, 1.475]), while the difference between negative (mean = 4.85) and neutral images was marginally significant (b = 0.539, t 93 = 2.391, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.056, 95% CI = [−0.011, 1.088]).

Interestingly, the three-way interaction between span, age-group and gender is nearly significant, F (1, 103) = 3.73, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.035.

We find the effect is borderline significant ( p = 0.056).

For the prototype (P), it was found only a marginally significant difference (Mdn_US = 4151.30; Mdn_China = 2446.50, U = 96.00, z = −1.61, p = 0.056).

For the 12-month-old infants significant changes in RTP as a function of time occurred for the Non-native stimuli only, indicated by the marginally significant Window × Language interaction, F (2, 20) = 3.46, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.26.

Additionally, self-concept indirectly mediates the relationship between resilience and Mark (β = 0.02, p = 0.004), and the indirect mediating relationship between emotional intelligence and mark is very close to significance (β = 0.01 p = 0.056).

From the results of RTs, it was found that the main effect of group was marginally significant ( F (1, 77) = 3.779, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.047), with the RT of the LSA (54.03 ± 503.97) being significantly shorter than that of the HSA group (256.57 ± 439.37); the main effect of the congruency type was significant ( F (1, 77) = 61.604, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.444), and the RTs to congruent stimuli (110.56 ± 460.38) were significantly shorter than those to incongruent stimuli (200.04 ± 482.96).

However this was mitigated by a marginally significant interaction by group [group × change, F (1, 30) = 3.969, p = 0.056], such that this effect was observed in tone speakers ( p < 0.001) but not in the control group ( p = 0.215).

However, there were no significant differences between groups [χ 2 (1) < 1, p = 0.879], and the interaction just missed significance [χ 2 (1) = 3.6, p = 0.056].

However, the main effect for the Cost to Opponent approached significance [ F (1,148) = 3.72, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.025]—in that participants may have reported overall greater success in their predictions under the Low Cost condition ( M = 12.69) than under the High Cost condition ( M = 11.70).

Additionally, higher levels of agreeableness were uniquely associated with stronger revenge motivations toward the self, even though this agreeableness/revenge relationship was only marginally significant at the level of bivariate correlations ( r = 0.22, p = 0.056, Table 5 ).

Personal Event Mann–Whitney U -tests on free recall performance revealed significant differences for two periods: recent past ( z = 2.93, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.25), near future ( z = 2.41, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.18) and a marginally significant effect for the distant future ( z = 1.95, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.11).

The interaction effect between input mode and text difficulty was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.81, p = 0.056, indicating that in general, insertions made by the dictation group were more sensitive to text difficulty than those made by the typing group. 4.3.2.

Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons revealed a significant jump in accuracy from the 33% intensity condition to the 50% intensity condition ( p < 0.001) and a marginally significant jump from the 50% intensity condition to the 67% intensity condition ( p = 0.056).

It is possible that our sample size was simply too small to determine any effects, which could be indicated by the effect of therapeutic factors on self-efficacy in the following session showing borderline significance ( p = 0.056).

Interestingly, the interaction between voice category and gender approached significance [ F (4.4,727.8) = 2.2, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.004] and would have suggested that the resistance of TRANS listeners occurred more toward actors on the extremities of the human range such as basses and sopranos than toward categories in the middle.

The main effect of video-based absolute accuracy was marginally significant ( β = −0.52, SE = 0.27, t = −1.94, and p = 0.056), indicating that larger absolute accuracy seemed to be associated with poorer audiovisual comprehension performance.

Analysis of the random effects structure revealed that the Subject ID random intercept was marginally significant (Wald Z = 1.91, p = 0.056), accounting for 14% of the total variance (ICC = 0.14).

Memory condition exhibited near-significant trend toward predicting lower sadness recovery, b = −1.9007, p = 0.056, 95% CI [−3.8529, 0.0516].

The curvature of the LOIC was marginally significant [a4 = 0.14, 95% CI (−0.004, 0.277), p = 0.056], suggesting that whether adolescents or parents hold high educational expectations is related to better parent–child relationships as reported by parents (see Figure 2B ).

We found a marginally significant effect of robot verbal support on participants' psychological safety scores ( c = 0.35, SE = 0.18, p = 0.056), where participants in groups with robot verbal support had slightly higher psychological safety scores ( M = 6.06, SD = 0.74) than participants in groups without robot verbal support ( M = 5.92, SD = 0.74).

The language by length by age interaction approached significance [ F (3, 735) = 2.53, p = 0.056]: there was an effect of length in younger children of both languages (mean of increase for letter = 10.1 and 5.1% for English and Italian, respectively); among older children, the effect of length was present for English, but not Italian, children (4.0 and 0.3%, respectively).