Excerpts

Further, the difference between L1 Mismatch and control was marginally significant for AHE [ b = 0.71, χ 2 (1) = 7.57, p = 0.071] but not for NE [ b = 0.50, χ 2 (1) = 0.00, p = 1.00].

Although the number of saccades was numerically smaller for spaced sentences (mean: 17.74 saccades for spaced, and 18.11 for unspaced), regression analysis revealed only a marginally significant difference (β = −0.447, SE = 0.247, p = 0.071).

In the moderate-fatigue condition, the advantage of external focus further, showing a trend toward significance [ t (29) = 1.86, p = 0.071, d = 0.74].

CORRELATION ANALYSIS As a result of an exploratory correlation analysis, we observed a positive relationship between changes in subjective arousal and changes in left amygdala activation between the “permit negative” and “view negative” conditions with a trend toward significance (ρ = 0.324, p = 0.071).

Similarly, the model was only marginally significant for VH incongruent trials F (4, 118) = 2.22, p = 0.071 and accounted for 7% of the variability in reaction time.

The coefficients are statistically indistinguishable from zero, with the exception of Panel A Model 2, which is weakly significant ( p =0.071).

On the SWM task ( Figure 2A ), an interaction was observed between GA group and demand level that approached significance, F (2.77, 210.83) = 2.43, p = 0.071, partial η 2 = 0.031, ε = 0.694.

The rmANOVA of the frequency values showed a marginally significant effect of the interaction of group and hand [ F (4, 15) = 2.694, p = 0.071, η 2 = 0.418; Table 3 ].

Somatosensory was significantly related to Motor ( z = 3.160, p = 0.008; FDR-corrected) and there was a tendency toward significance with Temperature ( z = 2.194; p = 0.071; FDR-corrected).

We also found a stimulus type by length interaction [ F (1,24) = 6.488, p = 0.018, partial μ 2 = 0.213], as the length effect was smaller in pseudowords with consistent graphemes than in pseudowords with context-dependent graphemes; the block by stimulus type was close to significance [ F (1,24) = 3.571, p = 0.071, partial μ 2 = 0.130], indicating that RTs of pseudowords with consistent graphemes decreased more quickly with repeated reading; and a block by length interaction [ F (1,24) = 18.629, p < 0.001, partial μ 2 = 0.437], as the typical readers showed a length effect reduction with the repetitions.

Although the group × time interaction was only marginally significant ( p = 0.071), exploratory analyses suggested a tendency for larger post-test P3 amplitudes in the Tai Chi training group, particularly for negative and neutral stimuli.

The interaction between these two variables approached significance F (1, 19) = 3.66, p = 0.071, η 2 p = 0.16, indicating a larger singleton distractor compatibility effect in the low load condition [I – N = 3.82%, t (19) = 2.57, p < 0.025] than in the high load condition [I – N = 0.47%, p > 0.5].

There was no main effect of list position, F (1,36) = 0.096, MSE = 0.634, p = 0.76, partial η 2 = 0.003 but a main effect of distraction, F (1,36) = 6.11, MSE = 0.585, p = 0.018, partial η 2 = 0.15 and a numerical trend towards an interaction of distraction with list position, F (1,36) = 3.46, MSE = 0.38, p = 0.071, partial η 2 = 0.09, as illustrated in Figure 3 .

The MANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of Drawing on Linear Overgeneralizations [ F (2,197) = 1.970, p = 0.071; η p 2 = 0.020].

Moreover, female participants rated the unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment scenarios more negatively than male participants ( P = 0.005 and P = 0.020, respectively), but there was marginally significant gender difference in the ratings for the sexual coercion scenarios ( P = 0.071).

In this case, a trend toward significance suggested the inclusion of time ( χ 2 (4) = 8.4, p = 0.077), where the evaluation at T2 showed a trend toward improvement compared to the baseline ( p = 0.071), probably as an effect of the task repetition since the assessment was repeated in a shorter time (every month) up to T2 and then with longer time intervals (see Figure 3 ).

For the connective ALTHOUGH, we observed a marginally significant interaction between factors, F (1,35) = 3.44, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.09 such that, for alternative trials, responses were faster in the left-to-right direction than in the right-to-left direction, p = 0.025 ( M = 481 vs. 537 ms).

Results from the Sobel test showed that discriminability was the mediator between the duration of the ongoing task and EBPM performance, z = -1.65, p = 0.052 (marginally significant), while self-reminding was not, z = -1.14, p = 0.072 ( Table 6 ).

In addition, a near-significant ratio of change × test trial type interaction was found [ F (1, 72) = 3.3, p = 0.072] revealing that infants successfully detected the fourfold, but not the threefold change in item size.

The distributional analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between HighNo and Bin2 (β = −0.22, z = −1.8, p = 0.072).

The difference for local inferences questions was only a marginally significant trend, F (1, 85) = 1.92, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.038.

The GLM for happy ratings revealed a main effect of time of assessment, F (1, 68) = 72.479, p < 0.0001, η 2 partial = 0.516 (greater happiness after the memory condition than after the film clip), no main effect of memory condition, F (1, 68) = 0.069, p = 0.793, η 2 partial = 0.001, and only a weak trend toward a significant interaction of time and memory condition, F (1, 68) = 3.328, p = 0.072, η 2 partial = 0.047 (higher increases in happiness in the nostalgia condition).

Still, in our study, general criminality showed a trend level positive correlation with total malevolent creativity of revenge ideas ( r = 0. 18, p = 0 .072), suggesting that malevolent creativity tests may capture a certain albeit very small aspect of real-life behavior after all (see Supplementary part D ).

Although this increase of response priming was numerically still larger than the analogous alerting signal based increase for priming by novel primes, this difference was only marginally significant, F (1, 31) = 3.46, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.10.

Specifically, greater attachment security, β = 0.30, p = 0.009, the interaction between child attachment security and parental scaffolding, β = 0.23, p = 0.048, and child age, β = 0.02, p < 0.001, predicted greater exploration in children, whereas the main effect of parental scaffolding was marginally significant, β = 0.20, p = 0.072.