Excerpts

However, the FIRST score at Post-REB approached significance for the G-hyp group compared to Pre-REB ( p = 0.062).

The main effect of emotional consistency was marginally significant ( F (2,34) = 3.012, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.151).

Forward Digit Span = 6.68, Incidental Memorization Task = 1.968, RAVENS = 71.54) revealed a significant difference between the Rate of Transmission conditions (Fast Rate and Slow Rate groups) for the New-syllable XXY [ M = 0.101, SE = 0.045, F (1,213) = 4.936, p = 0.027], and a nearly significant difference for the Familiar-syllable X1X2Y [ M = 0.085, SE = 0.045, F (1,213) = 3.522, p = 0.062].

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 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)].

There was also a marginally significant effect of SNR, F (1.752,70.060) = 3.010, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.070.

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).

With respect to feelings when talking about sexuality, the distributions showed a nonsignificant trend (Fisher’s exact p = 0.062), with fewer students reporting that they had never talked about the topic at post-test.

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].

The Tukey least-squares-means test showed that participants accepted offers made when the computer displayed GL more than when it displayed RH ( p = 0.0623, marginally significant) or no light animation ( p < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between when the computer displayed RH and no light animation.

Mean participant age was also negatively associated with effect sizes ( β = −0.05, SE = 0.02, t(12) = −2.56, p = 0.0248, 95% CI [−0.09, −0.01]), whereas sample size showed a trend towards smaller effects in larger studies (β = −0.03, SE = 0.01, t(12) = −2.05, p = 0.0625, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.00]).

The covariate emotional attachment to the in-group was marginally significant ( b = 0.1971, SE = 0.1047, t = 1.8825, p = 0.0627, 95% CIs = -0.0107, 0.4050).

those who had not (17 participants) correctly indicated the frequent distractor region, in a group × distractor condition analysis of variance (ANOVA), revealed [besides a significant distractor condition main effect: F (1.37,31.52) = 38.12, p < 0.001; Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected values] a marginally significant interaction, F (1.37,31.52) = 2.38, p = 0.063 (Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected values).

The control group, in contrast, showed a nonsignificant trend toward a decrease in this trait ( p = 0.063, rb = −0.26).

Neither of the main effects of group nor gender on the proportion of errors corrected were significant (all F s < 0.31, p s > 0.57, η p 2 s < 0.01), however, there was a marginally significant interaction between group and gender, F (3, 132) = 2.5, p = 0.063, η p 2 < 0.054.

For the time by group interaction, univariate analyses revealed that this effect was for somatic intensity, F (3, 72) = 3.45, p = 0.021, η p 2 = 0.13, and approached significance for somatic direction, F (3, 72) = 2.55, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.10.

There was no main effect of trial type [ F (1,61) = 0.70, p = 0.41, η2 p = 0.011] but a close-to-significant interaction of trial type and age group, F (2,61) = 2.89, p = 0.063, η2 p = 0.087.

However, v * approached significance between synesthetes and controls ( t = 12.37, p = 0.063), indicating that synesthetes are marginally more consistent in the yellow-blue dimension of their color associations.

For the lateral electrodes, a Condition (3) by Anteriority (2) and Hemisphere (2) repeated measures ANOVA showed a trend for a main effect of Condition [ F (2,56) = 2.903, p = 0.063], and a significant Condition by Hemisphere interaction [ F (2,56) = 6.496, p < 0.05].

No other main effects or interactions were found at the ventral-medial sites, where the interaction between Context and Combination only approached significance, F (1, 20) = 3.866, p = 0.063, nor at the ventral-lateral sites.

The interaction among time, stress state and regulation strategy was marginally significant [ F (2,174) = 2.802, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.031].

It showed that the three-way interaction was marginally significant ( F 1 , 50 = 3.62, p = 0.063, partial η 2 = 0.068).

The interaction between affective content and velocity was marginally significant, F (1.60, 52.93) = 3.11, p = 0.063, ε = 0.80, η p 2 = 0.09.

Subjective Feelings of Sadness The 3 (time: at baseline, after rumination induction, after mood induction) × 3 (group: anger group, joy group, neutral mood group) repeated measures ANOVA of sadness indicated that the main effect of time was significant [ F (2,174) = 62.614, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.419], the main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (2,87) = 2.847, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.061], the interaction between time and group was significant [ F (4,174) = 2.630, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.057].

The interaction between region and number approached significance, F (1, 27) = 2.62, p = 0.082, η 2 p = 0.089 and further analyses yielded a marginally significant difference between plural and singular attractors in the centroparietal region, t (27) = 1.94, p = 0.063, and a significant difference in the parieto-occipital region, t (27) = 2.32, p = 0.028, with plural attractors showing an increased amplitude when compared to singular attractors.