Excerpts

Action video gamers had descriptively higher latencies at the right side ( F 1.00,31.00 = 1.28, p = 0.27; see Table 6 ) and non-gamers showed almost significant higher latencies at the left side ( F 1.00,31.00 = 3.88, p = 0.058).

Unpleasant Feelings While Processing the Campaigns In addition, a 2 × 2 ANOVA on unpleasant feelings revealed a marginally significant interaction ( F (1, 307) = 3.635, p = 0.058).

Chi-square test revealed marginal significance, χ 2 = 5.692, df = 2, p = 0.058, Cramer's V = 0.287.

The interaction effect of POLARITY_MAIN × POLARITY_SUB was marginally significant [see Figure 2 ; F (1,16) = 4.16, p = 0.058].

However, note this association was only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.058).

The gender × age interaction emerged as a predictor; young women and men had similar scores that slightly decreased until the breakpoint age, and then, a decrease—although marginally significant—was observed (age after the breakpoint std. beta = −0.14; p = 0.058), maintaining gender differences (see Figure 1C ; Supplementary Table S4 ).

For low performers , the main effect for TMS site was borderline significant [ F (1,7) = 5.107; p = 0.058; η p 2 = 0.422], with the main effect of congruency [ F (3,21) = 1.264; p = 0.312; η p 2 = 0.153] and interaction between site and congruency being non-significant [ F (3,21) = 2.293; p = 0.11; η p 2 = 0.247].

Planned paired t -tests between targets surrounded by fearful flanker faces compared to all other flankers (average) were significant for emotion recognition accuracy ( t (28) = 2.18, p = 0.038) and revealed a statistical trend for reaction time ( t (28) = 1.98, p = 0.058) ( Figure 5 ).

It yielded a significant main effect of time point [ F (1,19) = 6.87; p = 0.017] and a marginally significant main effect of synchronicity [ F (1,19) = 4.08; p = 0.058], indicating that the proprioceptive drift toward the RH tended to be larger in the condition with synchronous stroking.

The correlation between SD and RA was marginally significant ( r = 0.09, p = 0.058). 3.2.

The different statement was chosen more frequently than same and not disorders ( same : p = 0.003, not disorders : p = 0.001; p -values were adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures); however, the difference between different and differentiation unnecessary only approached significance ( p = 0.058).

A Sex × Target mixed ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of Target, F (2, 60) = 60.45, p < 0.0001, partial η 2 = 0.67, and a marginally significant main effect of Sex, F (1, 30) = 3.88, p = 0.058, partial η 2 = 0.11.

The association between experiencing conflicts with parents and traditional bullying perpetration was marginally significant ( b = 0.207, SE = 0.109, p = 0.058, AME = 0.126).

However, we observed an increasing trend of average fixation rate from C2 to C3 ( Z = 1.88, p = 0.058).

As shown in speaker-listener rows in Table 2 , the main effect of experimental role was significant on SBP [ F (1,42) = 5.24, p = 0.027] and DBP [ F (1,42) = 15.16, p = 0.001], marginally significant on NA [ F (1,42) = 3.80, p = 0.058], but not significant on HR [ F (1,42) = 1.12, p = 0.296].

This difference bordered on significance [ F (1, 93) = 3.699, p = 0.058, η 2 = 0.038].

As a result, the multivariate test revealed no significant effects of the covariates age and gender, both F < 1, but a marginally significant effect of the covariate IQ, F (4,34) = 2.54, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.23.

In the areas responsible for the word identification system (i.e., left triangular part of the IFG and left insula), only marginally significant effects were observed in the response to the types of words [left IFG: F (2,44) = 3.04, p = 0.058; left insula: F (2,44) = 3.17, p = 0.052].

Results of simple effect analysis showed the effect of self-regulation was not significant on strength-type heroes, marginally significant on agility-type heroes [ F (1, 112) = 3.679, p = 0.058, η2 p = 0.032], and significant on intelligence-type heroes [ F (1, 112) = 8.167, p = 0.005, η2 p = 0.068].

The regression model explained 14.0% of the variance in this criterion variable, which was marginally significant [ F (3, 49) = 2.668, p = 0.058].

In the Hungarian sample, there was a marginally significant negative effect on subtle prejudice ( B = −0.099, SE = 0.052, β = −0.180, t = −1.91, p = 0.058).

These main effects were modified by a significant interaction of Condition × Age, F (9, 1014) = 8.31, p < 0.000, a near-significant effect of Condition × Home Language, F (9, 1014) = 1.84, p = 0.058, and a significant interaction of Condition × Age × Home Language, F (27, 1014) = 1.55, p = 0.036.

The main effect of emotion conditions was marginally significant [ F (1.407, 21.100) = 3.616, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.194], but the main effect of time points and the interaction were all not significant.

On the Knox cube test, there was a borderline significant result at the first performance ( p = 0.058), with closer to equal test results on the second trial.

The regression model was marginally significant, R 2 = 0.35, F (7, 36) = 2.25, p = 0.058; Table 5 shows the results.