The results were not significant, but they showed a trend that supported sub-hypothesis 2 ( U = 445, p = 0.061, n spontaneous = 28, n forced = 26, PS = 0.61, 95% CIs of medians [0.024, 0.097] ( spontaneous ) and [0.0, 0.0] ( forced )) ( Figure 3D ).
The path analysis revealed that allopregnanolone exerted a significant direct effect on frontal cortex SERT binding (standardized estimate -0.321, p = 0.034) and a borderline significant effect on reaction latency (standardized estimate -0.179, p = 0.061).
However, the FIRST score at Post-REB approached significance for the G-hyp group compared to Pre-REB ( p = 0.062).
Positive Affect (PANAS) Results from the positive affect scale of PANAS showed a main effect of age approaching significance, F (1,198) = 3.51, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.02 (BF = 0.76) with young adults having higher scores than older adults.
The effect of age approached significance for MTS, F (1,73) = 3.63, p = 0.062.
Intensity An LME model with random slopes showed a significant effect of Emotion [ β = 6.393 (SE = 2.364), t (351) = −2.704, p = 0.0072], a marginally significant two-way interaction between Age and Emotion [ β = 0.3916 (SE = 0.209), t (351) = −1.873, p = 0.062], a significant two-way interaction between Sex and Sentence [ β = 0.8233 (SE = 0.404), t (351) = 2.037, p = 0.0425], a three-way interaction among Sex, Emotion, and Sentence [ β = −1.447 (SE = 0.572), t (351) = −2.531, p = 0.0118], a marginally significant three-way interaction among Age, Sex, and Sentence [ β = −0.0559 (SE = 0.0297), t (347.827) = −1.879, p = 0.0611], and a four-way interaction among Age, Sex, Emotion, and Sentence [ β = 0.099 (SE = 0.042), t (351) = 2.358, p = 0.0189].
A repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse–Geisser correction ( ε = 0.617) revealed a main effect of View Content approaching significance, F (1.851, 62.922) = 2.970, p = 0.062, partial η 2 = 0.080.
Although the local SN showed a tendency to be lateralized to the left hemisphere, this component was more bilateral than the SN for global distracters and thus only marginally significant ( p = 0.062, Figure 3C and right panel of Figure 6 ).
For misophonic participants, the difference between these exposures was marginally significant [U S U V Exposure 4 - Exposure 1: M = −0.052, SE = 0.025, t (13) = 2.04, p = 0.062] but for non-misophonic participants, the mean difference was not significant [U S U V Exposure 4 - Exposure 1: M = −0.003, SE = 0.029, t (13) = 0.11, p = 0.91].
In addition, the interaction SLEEP × REWARD × AGE showed a trend toward significance [ F (1,34) = 3.7, p = 0.062].
Statistical Results We observed an almost significant difference between conditions with respect to the change in overall stress, F (2,101) = 2.85, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.053.
Additionally, semantic processing had a marginally significant contribution [ b = 0.031, t (46) = 1.92, p = 0.062].
For the d-prime data, the Part factor was not significant overall F (3, 45) = 2.14, p = 0.11 [It approached significance for the sir-ssir contrast, F (3, 45) = 2.63, p = 0.062].
The two-way interaction of video x phase was not significant when all three video conditions were entered into the ANOVA model, p > 0.17, but it approached significance when the urban video and no video data were combined into a single group for comparison with the nature video condition, F (1, 88) = 3.570, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.039.
The main effect of Word Length was marginally significant [ F (1, 22) = 3.88, p = 0.062].
A mixed effect logistic regression, predicting the likelihood of making this type of error (1, 0) by condition, controlling for time point and problem type revealed that this difference was marginally significant: Children in the action condition made more adding-the-first-two-numbers errors than children in the gesture condition [χ 2 (1) = 3.50, p = 0.062].
The interaction between noise sensitivity and NFCC is equal to -0.286 and is marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.062).
Finally, three out of four scales were significant predictors of the satisfaction with time use item, with the remaining self-congruence scale a marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.062).
Simple effects analyses indicated that compared to low integration, high integration in both the extraverted and introverted groups demonstrated a marginally significant higher level of life satisfaction ( p = 0.062 for extravert and p = 0.067 for introvert).
The effect of Emotion tended toward significance also in children with ASD (HFA: F ( 2 , 44 ) = 2.97, p = 0.062, η 2 G = 0.05; LFA: F ( 2 , 24 ) = 3.14; p = 0.061, η 2 G = 0.04), therefore exploratory post hoc comparisons were performed also in these groups.
Only compassion ( B = 0.34, P < 0.001) but not perceived discrimination ( B = 0.01, P = 0.696) positively associated with charitable giving (Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.183), while perceived discrimination showed a marginal trend for enhancing the effect of compassion on participation in charitable giving ( B = 0.04, P = 0.062, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.150).
Liking ratings did not differ between the background and the contrasting emotion after one or two presentations, but they approached significance after four presentations, F (1, 46) = 3.66, p = 0.062, partial η 2 = 0.07, and differed significantly after eight presentations, F (1, 46) = 5.17, p = 0.028, partial η 2 = 0.10.
No main effects of strategy type were significant for movement duration or average speed ( all adjusted p > 0.10), and although interaction effects approached significance for movement duration [ F (3,1,264) = 2.47, p = 0.062] and average speed [ F (3,1,264) = 2.49, p = 0.060], these too did not survive Bonferroni correction ( p = 1.000 and p = 0.211, respectively).
For the pointed script bi-morphemic words were read more accurately than mono-morphemic words [significant in 5th grade ( t (28) = 2.544, p = 0.017) and marginally significant in 2nd grade ( t (26) = 1.951, p = 0.062)].
Importantly, the main effect of trial type was marginally significant, [ F (1, 59) ] = 3.63, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.06 (the estimated Bayes factor was H 01 = 1.74).