Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = .0551.1× alphagold
Furthermore, the MANCOVA on the same aPET ROI and the bilateral OFC fNIRS revealed a significant group effect [ F (6, 174) = 6.64, p < .001], leading to a significant effect on amyloid PET [ F (3, 88) = 11.46, p < .001] and a marginally significant effect on fNIRS [ F (3, 88) = 2.63, p = .055], Overall, Fig 6 shows that the amyloid PET signal tends to better differentiate the AD group from others, and the fNIRS signal tends to differentiate the SMI group from the other groups. fNIRS and anatomical measures When the LME model was fitted to the anatomical measures, no significant correlation between the fNIRS ROIs and gray volume or cortical thickness was found above and beyond what the group difference could explain.
almost significantp = 0.0551.1× alphagold
Breaking down the interaction between the number of children and religiosity revealed that in participants at high (+1 SD ) level of religiosity the number of children did not significantly predict marital satisfaction ( β = -0.010, t = -0.562 p = 0.576), however this relationship was almost significant and negative in participants at mean level of religiosity ( β = -0.030, t = -1.974, p = 0.055), and significant at low (-1 SD ) level of religiosity ( β = -0.051, t = -2.811, p = 0.006) ( Fig 3 ).
borderline significantp = 0.0551.1× alphagold
The main effect of Type of HoloLens was not significant for both tasks (2D stepping target: F (1,15) = 0.76, p = 0.398, ƞ p 2 = 0.048; 3D obstacle crossing: F (1,15) = 2.64, p = 0.125, ƞ p 2 = 0.149), while the Type of Object × Type of HoloLens interaction was borderline significant for 2D target-stepping ( F (1,15) = 4.34, p = 0.055, ƞ p 2 = 0.225; Fig 5B ) and 3D obstacle-crossing ( F (1,15) = 4.62, p = 0.048, ƞ p 2 = 0.235; Fig 4C ) tasks, indicating that, at least for holographic 3D obstacle crossing, the initial orientation was significantly smaller for HoloLens 2 than for HoloLens 1 ( t (15) = 2.23, p = 0.041) in the absence of HoloLens differences for real-world 3D obstacles ( t (15) = -0.57, p = 0.578), a finding consistent with our expectations regarding the difference in AR-FOV size between HoloLenses.