Need for cognition and WM had marginally significant mediating effects in congruent conditions (β = −0.280, p = 0.064).
Excerpts
Interaction between the group and the learning mode was marginally significant [ F (2,92) = 2.831, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.058].
The difference between the cross-lagged path coefficients was marginally significant, Δχ 2 (1) = 3.42, p = 0.064, with a stronger association leading from WM-t1 to ToM-t2 than in the opposite direction.
approached significancep = 0.065
The interaction term approached significance in the wide spacing (horizontal: F (3,114) = 2.47, p = 0.065; vertical: F (3,114) = 2.63, p = 0.054), suggesting a weak range effect found only for the wide spacing.
Sex was marginally significant in its association with exam performance, F (1, 334) = 3.55, p = 0.065, β = −0.10, 95% CI = [−0.44, 0.01], indicating that females tended to score higher on the exam than males.
approached significancep = 0.065
No statistical test reached significance for any of these effects (the gender effect approached significance, p = 0.065; see Tables S16 and S16.1–4 ).
The coefficient associated with the performance-approach goal × personal sense of power interaction term became marginally significant ( b = 0.15, SE b = 0.08, β = 0.16, p = 0.065).
Site Order seemed to have a marginally significant effect on the Low Frequency signal, F (1,11) = 4.206, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.277, but not on the High Frequency signal, F (1,11) = 0.216, p = 0.651, η 2 = 0.019.
For the Possible split model, the effect of age only tended toward significance (χ2 = 3.4, df = 1, p = 0.065).
showed a trendp = 0.065
The linear regression for social toys showed a trend, F (1,159) = 3.46, p = 0.065, which showed that the higher the AQ, the less likely was the selection of a social toy, see Figure 4A .
almost significantlyp = 0.065
Paired t -tests of birds’ responses showed that birds treated NEW / I / almost significantly more like FAM / I / than FAM / ε / ( p = 0.065).
The interaction between delay and action was marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 3.6, p = 0.065], and indicated that performance improvement in delayed touch trials was present in active touch blocks [ F (1,34) = 10.0, p = 0.003] but absent in passive touch blocks [ F (1,34) < 1, p = 0.521].
The main effect of Standard Order was marginally significant, F (1, 15) = 3.96, p = 0.065, showing a trend toward a larger dilation when S2 was the modulated stimulus, just as we observed in Experiment 1.
A mixed effects logistic regression analysis of gesture type as a function of group revealed a marginally significant effect of group (ß = −1.256, p = 0.065), with L2 signers' producing numerically more gestures about figure than path-only gestures (67% vs. 33%, SD = 26) compared to the non-signers (46% vs. 54% SD = 28).
Melodic musicians did not differ in accuracy with any other group, although within 120–139 BPM, the difference in accuracy between musicians and controls was near significance (120–139 BPM musicians vs. controls, p =0.065; other comparisons p ≥0.255).
The analysis of percentage errors showed a marginally significant main effect of spatial correspondence F (1,46) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.07 that interacted significantly with instruction F (1,46) = 4.40, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0.09.
The interaction effect of stimuli type and gaze direction was marginally significant, F (2, 58) = 2.861, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.090, BF incl = 2.465.
showed a trendp = 0.065
Additionally, the alternative results using DoG2 showed a trend for a negative relationship between DoG2 and age ( r τ = −0.143, p = 0.065).
Classification skills showed a strong trend toward significance ( p = 0.065), suggesting a potential moderating role of attitude that warrants further investigation.
We checked whether this could be explained by manipulation size (β = − 0 .305 ± 0.074, t = −4.122, p < 0.001), with both effects disappearing when including the marginally significant framework × manipulation size interaction in the model ( p = 0.065).
marginally non-significantp = 0.065
However, only a marginally non-significant difference was detected between these two groups [ t 19.99 = 1.949, p = 0.065; mean of the “no control” group = 70%, s.e.m. = 6%; mean of the “control” group = 57%, s.e.m. = 3%, Cohen's d = 0.642].
The group effect on reaction time showed a numerical trend, F (2, 42) = 2.913, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.122, which indicated that the comorbidity group produced longer reaction time than did the other two groups ( p s < 0.05).
Nevertheless, the condition × group interaction on RTs was marginally significant ( p = 0.065), since older adults presented slower RTs in incongruent trials (mean RT = 929 ms, SD = 202) compared to congruent trials (mean RT = 919 ms, SD = 200), t (24) = -2.22, p < 0.05.
approached significancep = 0.065
Collapsed across conditions, same-key priming was significant, t (22) = 3.15, p < 0.01, d = 0.71, whereas different-key priming approached significance, t (21) = 1.56, p = 0.065, d = 0.38.
For participants in the 3-to-4-year-old group ( Figure 4B ), two significant time-windows were found: the first one coinciding with the first onset of the target word during the test (from 2000 ms until 4320 ms; p < 0.0001) and the second one coinciding with the second repetition of the target word during the test (from 7580 ms until 10000 ms, the end of the trial; p < 0.0001); a third time-window (from 0 to 1040 ms) was marginally significant ( p = 0.065).