Excerpts

When we omitted the NR subjects from our analyses, we still observed an effect of monetary reward [ F (2, 58) = 16.530, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant effect of liquid feedback [ F (1, 29) = 3.658, p = 0.066].

In contrast, for males the three-way interaction was marginally significant (LRT: χ 2 = 3.37, df = 3, p = 0.066, Figure 4 ).

Mechanisms of motor control in handwriting readiness In the integrated structural model, while Pencil Grip showed a marginally significant positive association with Writing Performance (β = 0.137, p = 0.066), its direct impact appeared to be partially suppressed by the inclusion of the overarching VMI-Performance factor.

Results Participant Attitudes and Satisfaction The main ANOVA revealed significant effects of study group for satisfaction [ F (2, 1505) = 11.337, p < 0.0001], comfort [ F (2, 1505) = 5.388, p = 0.005], relevance [ F (2, 1505) = 5.980, p = 0.003], importance [ F (2, 1505) = 3.137, p = 0.044], and a marginally significant effect for understanding [ F (2, 1505) = 2.719, p = 0.066].

The meta-regression analyses showed that the study quality was negatively correlated with effect sizes of AVG training, approaching significance (Slop = -0.08, Q = 3.39, P = 0.066).

Directionally consistent with our hypotheses, this analysis revealed that higher status trials had a marginally significant higher proportion of donors than lower status ones, p = 0.066.

The main effect of the end approached significance, F (1, 143) = 3.44, p = 0.066, partial ω 2 = 0.016, whereas the main effect of the beginning marginally failed to reach significance, F (1, 143) = 2.12, p = 0.120, partial ω 2 = 0.007.

The frontal cluster reaches a trend toward significance [ t (24) = −1.92, p = 0.066; |d| = 0.38], the right temporal [ t (24) = 0.38, p = 0.705; d = 0.08 ] and the centro-parietal [ t (24) = −0.83, p = 0.413; |d| = 0.17] clusters do not yield significant results, respectively (see Figures 3 , 4 ).

Only in the younger group did the mean pattern score of the load-related pattern also contribute to task performance; in the older group, significance of this association was only marginally significant with p = 0.0665 (We performed corresponding linear regressions to predict mean reaction time in both age groups but did not find any associations with the load-related patterns in either age group and elected to omit the table listing for clarity.).

In the first aggregated region spanning the area from Cl2 until V, linear mixed models revealed a main effect of COMP, which however shows up with a marginal significance [ χ ( 1 ) 2 = 3 . 365 , p = 0.0666].

A RCS model with 4 knots approached significance, F (3, 68) = 2.49, p = 0.067, R 2 = 0.10.

It is noted that the decrement value had a significant trend to be larger than 0 even in the goal-present and gradual-stop conditions, t (26) = 1.92, p = 0.067, and the values in other conditions were significantly larger than 0, t s > 9.62, p s < 0.001.

There was a significant difference in mean relative preference values between simple and complex portraits, t (20) = 2.91, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.57 ( FDR corrected ) and a marginally significant difference between simple and complex landscapes, t (20) = 2.14, p = 0.067, Cohen's d = 0.55 ( FDR correcte d).

As can be seen in Figure 2 , a majority of children (18) showed improvements in their SIPC scores from pre- to post-intervention, although the effect was only marginally significant [ t (30) = -1.903, p = 0.067, effect size r : 0.333, Cohen’s d : -0.706].

The Group difference between the PTSD+ and PTSD- subjects was approaching significance ( p = 0.067); however, the interaction between trial type and PTSD symptomatology group was still non-significant [ F (1,63) = 0.57, p > 0.05].

This comparison yielded a marginally significant effect in favor of the additive model χ 2 (2) = 5.42, p = 0.067, p pb = 0.069, indicating that the two additional parameters did indeed add explanatory value.

Furthermore, we observed a trend toward significance in the variable Listening Condition, F (1,34) = 3.58, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.10, owing to higher sensitivity in the passive compared with active condition.

The main effects of moral scenario, F (1, 39) = 285.86, p < 0.001, η 2 g = 0.71, and temperature, F (1, 39) = 5.33, p = 0.026, η 2 g = 0.08, were significant, and the interaction between temperature and scenario was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 3.54, p = 0.067, η 2 g = 0.03.

Task effects in adults While there was a substantial change in RT across the three tasks, increasing from 1660 ms for the Butterfly task to 1760 ms for the Identity task and 1900 ms for the Expression task, the main effect of task on RT was only marginally significant [ F (2,48) = 2.9, p = 0.067].

The interaction approached significance for intercepts, F (3.07, 242.24) = 2.40, p = 0.067; η 2 = 0.030, but not for slopes, F (3.06, 242.11) = 0.98, n.s.; η 2 = 0.012.

However, the effect of the manipulation on students' entrepreneurial intent (INT) after controlling for students' gender and entrepreneurial role models, was marginally non-significant [ F (1, 75) = 3.445, p = 0.067].

The indirect effect of expectancy on JOSs through beliefs was close to significance, IND belief = 0.73, SE = 0.40, z = 1.83, p = 0.067, 95% CI [−0.05, 1.51], and beliefs accounted for 10% of the variance for the expectancy effect on JOSs, suggesting that beliefs might play an important role in the formation of JOSs.

The main effect of SVO was close to significance ( M proselfs = 0.39, SD proselfs = 0.22; M prosocials = 0.45, SD prosocials = 0.23), F (1,93) = 3.47, p = 0.067.

The interaction between Previous Accuracy × Time was marginally significant [ F (1,38) = 3.57, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.09].

A trend toward significance was also seen for activity at mismatched latitudes (−0.139, z = −1.834, p = 0.067) and could suggest a potential, slight decrease in activity at mismatched latitudes compared to activity displayed at matched latitudes.