Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Only following immediate post-reactivation interference, IPIs pattern generated at the very beginning of the retest session on Day3 was significantly modified by continued practice, as indicated by a significant effect of block across groups ( F (4.24,280.00) = 4.68, p = 0.001), a marginally significant block by group interaction ( F (12.73,280.00) = 1.70, p = 0.07) and a significant effect of block only in the ReactInt group in the subsequent post hoc analyses ( F (3.59,68.12) = 8.37, p < 0.001; F (3.00,42.01) = 0.50, p = 0.68; F (4.05,77.00) = 0.37, p = 0.83; F (3.32,4646) = 1.56, p = 0.21, ReactInt, React8hInt, ReactNoInt and NoReactNoInt group respectively).
near-significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Although the binary grouping showed a stronger individual effect, continuous stress remained near-significant as a standalone predictor ( p = 0.07) and consistently contributed to the most explanatory additive models: logConc + Area + Season ( p < 0.001), logConc + Area ( p < 0.001), and logConc + Area + Weight ( p < 0.001).
marginally significantp = 0.0701.4× alphagold
Follow-up analyses revealed that while there were no significant interactions between group and trial quadrant for phases IS and NL (all ps ≥ 0.160), there was a marginally significant interaction for the FT data, F (1,62) = 3.399, p = 0.070, partial η 2 = 0.052.
approached significancep = .0711.4× alpha
The main effect of neither facial expression or of the context approached significance level, nor did the interaction (for mean proportions of correct responses: max F = 3.670; min p = .071, max η p 2 = .057; for RTs max F = 1.296; min p = .269, max η p 2 = .014; see Figure 2a ).
showed a trendp = 0.0711.4× alpha
In addition, regressing hippocampal volume on perceived threat while simultaneously controlling for correlated self-report measures of anxiety, depression, and worry scores showed a trend-level relationship for perceived threat ( t (33) = −1.87, b = −32.4, p = 0.071) and no relationships for any of the other self-report indices (all | t s| < 0.8, all | b s| < 17, all p s > 0.4).
approached significancep = 0.0711.4× alpha
The same pattern was evident for Sleep/Rest Fatigue scores, with a main effect of FSS change group ( F [2, 192] = 5.42, p = 0.005) and significantly lower scores in the “improved” group than the “unchanged” group ( Mean DIFF = 1.93 [0.31, 3.55], p = 0.014), although the difference between “improved” and “deteriorated” groups only approached significance (Sleep/Rest Fatigue: Mean DIFF = 1.65 [−0.10, 3.39], p = 0.071).