Excerpts

These slopes showed a clear trend toward being significantly different between them ( Z = 1.48, p = 0.06).

These difference was significant ( p = 0.008) or marginally significant ( p = 0.06) in the experiment 2, which meant the interference of inter-character spaces and non-word spaces was appeared on the familiar format.

While the Consonant-Vowel contrast on the intercept term was not significant (β = 0.05, SE = 0.19, p = 0.81), its interaction with time was marginally significant (linear time parameter: β = 0.38, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06; cubic time parameter: β = −0.40, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of group x phobia relevance, F (1,106) = 3.67, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.03.

Results for the Non-Risks items are marginally significant ( p = 0.06), showing a tendency to decrease self-risk behaviors: the mean score and standard deviation at pre-test were T0: M = 50.03, SD = 11.48, while at post-test T1: M = 44.35, SD = 10.99.

While the main effect of Part-Whole Condition was only marginally significant, F (1,37) = 3.75, MSE = 161151.68, p = 0.060, there was a significant Orientation by Part-Whole Condition interaction, F (1,37) = 30.71, MSE = 112415.92, p < 0.001.

The main effect of Block was marginally significant [ F (2.864,112) = 2.602, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.085], whereas no interaction between Session and Block was identified [ F (4,112) = 0.654, p = 0.625, partial η 2 = 0.023].

Results showed that reading comprehension was significantly correlated with the difference score for unmarked word problems ( r = 0.19, p = 0.04) and had a marginally significant correlation with the difference score for marked word problems ( r = 0.17, p = 0.06).

A chi-square test revealed a marginally significant association between hassle and behavioral orientation ( χ 2 = 5.63, df = 2, p = 0.06).

This difference was close to significance for right-displaced lines ( p = 0.06), with RH with a L-ESD tended to show a larger rightward deviation that the one observed in RH with a R-ESD.

Subsequent per-group analyses only yielded a marginally significant main effect of Condition for the L1 group's total viewing times [ F 1(2, 64) = 2.98, p = 0.06; F 2(2, 34) = 2.5, p = 0.09], and a marginal one in the by-items analysis for the L2 group's rereading times [ F 1(2, 66) = 2.46, p = 0.09; F 2(2, 34) = 0.85, p = 0.43], however.

Additionally, mobility showed a trend with poorer performance in Science, such that mobile students scored on average 10.2 points lower ( SE = 5.42, p = 0.06) and were likely to reach proficiency in Science only 89% as often ( OR = 0.89, CI = [0.80–1.01], p = 0.07) as stable students.

Marginal significance we observed in openness to experience and general subscales (openness p = 0.06, general p = 0.08).

Follow-up tests for each level of Order, separately, indicated that there was no Task effect associated with Order 1 [ F (4, 10.88) = 1.86, p = 0.19] nor for Order 2 [ F (4, 10.27) = 2.36, p = 0.12], but there was a nearly significant Task effect for Order 3 [ F (4, 14.39) = 2.87, p = 0.06].

Perceived stressfulness, however, was related to greater negative affect ( r = 0.74, p < 0.001) and, although not quite statistically significant, elevated cortisol AUCi ( r = 0.30, p = 0.06).

The omnibus ANOVA analysis of the embodiment main effect revealed a not quite significant ( p < 0.06) effect in the data F (1, 54) = 3.87, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.07, such that participants tended to perseverate at the SAR task for a longer duration with a physical coach ( M = 936.28 s, SE = 117.86 s) compared to a live-video coach ( M = 699.94 s, SE = 89.87 s).

Post hoc analysis of the interaction using the Johnson-Neyman technique, as shown in Figure 1 , revealed no significant relation between T1 EF and T2 PPVT for TH children ( t = 0.99, p = 0.33), but a marginally significant negative relation for DHH children ( t = –1.91, p = 0.06), such that lower (better) T1 EF scores were significantly related with higher (better) T2 PPVT scores.

Finally, a positive trend could be observed between math anxiety scores and the IES difference ( r = 0.24; p = 0.06).

Compared with participants in the Control arm, those in the Resilience arm reported greater increases in personal resilience post-intervention ( p = 0.02, ES = 0.20, small level) and marginally significant increases at the 3-month ( p = 0.06, ES = 0.20, small level) and 6-month follow-ups ( p = 0.08, ES = 0.22, close to medium level; Figure 4 ).

Number was marginally significant with higher scores for singular objects (0.97) than for plural ones (0.91; β = -1.180, z = -1.863, p = 0.06).

The simple main effect of test time showed that the cognitive training group significantly improved on executive control, F (1,66) = 28.57, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.30, the active control group showed a trend of improvement, F (1,66) = 3.61, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.05, and the waitlist group did not show any improvement ( p = 0.84).

Further demonstrating the utility of the initial dip as a biomarker for metabolic overdrive, neither group alone (nor as a single aggregated group) had significant correlations between the subsequent PVC positive response (~6 s post stimulus onset) and drift rate improvement ( Figure 5B ; though the correlation of the minority group was marginally significant cc = −0.62, P = 0.06).

A 2 (Group) × 2 (Run) × 3 (Condition) mixed ANOVA for errors with repeated measures for Run and Condition revealed no significant differences between Groups, F (1, 29) = 1.17, p = 0.29, η 2 = 0.04, no significant effect for Run, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η 2 = 0.07, no significant effect for the Run × Group interaction, F (1, 29) < 1, a significant trend for the Condition × Group effect, F (2, 58) = 3.04, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, and a significant Run × Condition × Group interaction, F (2, 58) = 5.20, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.15.

We observed a main overall effect of group on VAMT Bias scores across IMR, STM, and LTM, at a statistical trend level ( p = 0.06), where patients with MDD tended to recall more negative words than positive words compared to healthy controls who recalled more positive words compared to negative words.

Patients tended to remember more negative words relative to positive words compared to healthy controls at borderline significance ( p = 0.06), and affective memory biases were negatively associated with depressive symptoms across the two groups at borderline significance ( p = 0.07), however, the effect sizes were small.