Excerpts

Effects of Task Framing WM Performance ANCOVA yielded a marginally significant interaction effect of Framing Type × Time [ F (2, 93) = 2.81, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.06] on WM performance.

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 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.

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).

However, caution should be taken when interpreting the effect of sex on overall EF scores because this effect had borderline significance ( p = 0.065), and the effect sizes were relatively small ( d = 0.13).

The planned comparison was however only marginally significant (estimate = 24, SD = 13, t = 1.851, p = 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].

Additionally, the alternative results using DoG2 showed a trend for a negative relationship between DoG2 and age ( r τ = −0.143, p = 0.065).

The cognitive load main effect was only marginally significant, F (3,66) = 2.52, p = 0.065, η 2 p = 0.10, but pairwise comparisons failed to reveal any significant difference (all p s ≥ 0.115).

Moreover, there was a marginally significant Time x Group interaction; F (2, 158) = 2.79, p = 0.065, eta 2 = 0.03.

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).

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).

Condition had a significant effect, B = −0.96, SE = 0.45, B(Exp ) = 0.38, p = 0.034, locus of control had a marginally significant effect, B = 0.72, SE = 0.39, B(Exp) = 2.05, p = 0.065, and the difference score had no significant effect, B = −0.25, SE = 0.40, B(Exp) = 0.78, p = 0.530.

For true sentences, we found a marginally significant effect of Modality switch [ F (1, 10) = 4.28, MSE = 20.72, p = 0.065] in the frontal electrodes, where mismatch showed a greater positivity than match (0.929 vs. 0.126 μV, difference 0.803).

In addition, a post hoc comparison showed a marginally significant gender difference in the EF scores, ( F (1, 752) = 3.41, p = 0.065, d = 0.13), with girls ( M = 100.98, SD = 18.83) scoring higher than boys ( M = 98.46, SD = 18.80).

At −150 ms SOA, there was a significant effect of part-relation by participants, F 1(1, 26) = 8.46, p = 0.007 partial η 2 = 0.25, but was only marginally significant by items F 2(1, 23) = 3.77, p = 0.065, partial η 2 = 0.14.

The interaction between Effector and Opposition Axis almost reached significance [ F (2, 30) = 3.0, p = 0.065], potentially suggesting that OA may have a slightly different impact on tool and free-hand imagery.

As seen from Table 1 , the psychological capital of teachers in ethnic areas was slightly higher than that of teachers in non-ethnic areas, and the test results reached borderline significance ( p = 0.065).

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).

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).

Initial Pearson correlation patterned in the expected direction, where greater time since divorce was associated with lower intensity of divorce-related recollections, although this association did not quite reach significance ( r = −0.33, p = 0.065).

The marginally significant contrast effect between 3-year-olds and 6-year-olds ( B = −0.943, SE = 0.422, z = −2.235, p = 0.0654) indicate that 6-year-olds produced marginally more BA responses than their 3-year-old counterparts while the remaining contrasts among 3- and 4-year-olds, and 4- and 6-year-olds were not significant.

Furthermore, being positive to COVID-19 was almost significant (OR: 1.96; p = 0.066).

More direct to our hypothesis, the interaction between week and country was marginally significant [ F (4,526) = 2.22, p = 0.066, η2 = 0.02)].

The Part factor was not significant for d-prime, F (3, 33) = 1.39, p = 0.26, and marginally significant for RT, F (3, 33) = 2.63, p = 0.066, indicating a trend toward acceleration of the responses.