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.
It showed that the three-way interaction was marginally significant ( F 1 , 50 = 3.62, p = 0.063, partial η 2 = 0.068).
Two-way ANOVAs revealed a main effect of reward value on felt achievement [ M high value = 5.03, M low value = 4.41; F (1, 259) = 9.40, p = 0.002, ω p 2 = 0.031] and a marginally significant main effect of reward value on competence [ M high value = 4.77, M low value = 4.43; F (1, 259) = 3.47, p = 0.063, ω p 2 = 0.009].
As illustrated in Figure 3 , there was a marginally significant main effect of Group, suggesting a trend for experts to be faster than novices overall [ F (1, 28) = 3.754, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.118].
The one interaction approaching significance ( p = 0.063) was a trend toward a positive relationship of more maternal Danish use to 2 nd grade language comprehension in Heritage bilinguals, which was not found in Mixed bilinguals.
The ANOVA on the data from the iambic condition yielded a marginally significant effect of Congruence, F (1,18) = 3.936, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.179, indicating a tendency of congruent items to evoke more negative potentials.
In a test of divided attention, for example, this improvement was not quite significant ( p = 0.063) after 5 months but, after another 5 months of extra training, the level of improvement further increased, reaching more reliable effects ( p = 0.002).
In this case, though no statistical differences emerged on AQC total score, we found a substantial trend toward significance [ t ( 46 ) = −1.90, p = 0.063].
Among the covariates, only infant age predicted the slope, albeit with a significant trend [ b = 0.021, 95%CI = (–0.013, 0.044), p = 0.063].
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 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.
The Emotion × Self-Relevance × Task × Region interaction was marginally significant in the mid-regions omnibus [ F (8,384) = 2.32, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.046] and not significant in the peripheral regions omnibus [ F (2,96) = 0.72, p = 0.489, η 2 = 0.015].
The main effect of Group approached significance [ F (2,57) = 2.898, p = 0.063, ε 2 = 0.092], reflecting higher overall accuracy in Controls than RH patients, and RH patients than LH patients (Control M = 91.7, SD = 0.08; RH M = 90.4, SD = 0.11, LH M = 84.1, SD = 0.13).
The correlation between CFI and Section A was weaker and only approached significance ( r = 0.274, p = 0.063).
However, note that the trend is close to significance with Musical Quality, in the necessity condition, (CG = 3.08; EG2 = 4.33; p = 0.063).
ERP Results In the 300–500 ms time window, statistical analysis of the ERP response to polysemous targets with three levels of Condition showed a marginally significant effect of Condition [ F (2,58) = 2.89, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.091] in the midline electrode groups with no significant interaction with the Posteriority factor.
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.
Looking at descriptive results, establishing a green office was associated with lower pre-questionnaire self-efficacy ( M established = 5.07, M not_established = 5.24), higher collective efficacy ( M established = 5.47, M not_established = 5.31), lower participatory efficacy ( M established = 4.54, M not_established = 4.88), and more volunteer time ( M established = 5.85, M not_established = 4.13) that also emerged as marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.063).
There was a significant effect of the training subcategory [ F (1, 201) = 12.85, p < 0.001, f = 0.24], an insignificant effect of training frame [ F (1, 201) = 1.05, p = 0.306], and a marginally significant effect of the predicted two-way interaction between the training subcategory and training frame [ F (1, 201) = 3.49, p = 0.063, f = 0.11].
The analysis yielded a main effect of competitive intragroup outcome interdependence, F (1,137) = 29.27, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.176, and a significant Strategies × Competitive Intragroup Outcome Interdependence interaction, F (1,137) = 18.58, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.119, and a marginally significant Results Presentation × Strategies interaction, F (1,137) = 3.52, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.025.
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).
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.
A marginally significant interaction qualified the main effects [ F (1,38) = 3.675, MSE = 822, p = 0.063, η g 2 = 0.015; +A+M: 414 ms, +C+M: 431 ms, +A–M: 451 ms, +C–M: 450 ms].
Similarly, during this period, there are no significant differences due to the animacy of the elements in gazes to the agent ( t = 0.67, p = 0.51), and only marginally significant in gazes to the patient ( t = 1.91, p = 0.063), with the IA condition being numerically higher than the other two conditions.
There was a marginally significant difference between the no price and price $30 conditions (50% vs. 57%, χ2(1) = 3.44, p = 0.063).