“marginally significant”

A marginally significant effect was found for the influence of loudness on the performance in the exercise condition, F (1,18) = 3.99, p = 0.06, and R 2 = 0.18.

sanctipalustris ( p = 0.060, marginally significant), N. tunga (0.002), and N. vrijeuni ( p = 0.003) in terms of the dominant frequency ( Figs. 5 and 6 , Table S9 ).

The difference in field force between Count 2 and Count 4 was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

The mean difference for mRND was 8.8%, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

(Only the correlation between rumination and workflow interruptions was marginally significant, p =0.06).

But, a mean difference of headache frequency was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

In the face conditions, the connectivities from FFA to dlPFC and PPA to FFA were significantly modulated ( t -test < 0.05) and PPA to dlPFC was also found marginally significant ( p = 0.06; Figure 6B ).

However, at 6 months postinjury, the correlation between PbtO 2 signals and GOS scores ( Figure 3(c) ) was still marginally significant ( P = 0.060). 4.

In the olfactory preference experiment, across 28 test trials the overall population showed a marginally significant preference for the orange odor ( t 27 = 1.953, p = 0.06).

Attachment-related avoidance was a marginally significant predictor ( t (286) = 1.90, P < 0.06).

This effect was marginally significant in risk-preferring rats (F(13,66) = 1.79, p=0.06).

The interaction between group and electrode was marginally significant ( F (48,1392) = 2.42, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.08).

Finally, the ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between cue validity and SOA, F (1, 23) = 3.79, p = 0.06, reflecting the observation that at the 300 ms SOA cued targets ( M = 431 ms) were responded to faster than uncued targets ( M = 442 ms), but at the 1000 ms SOA, the trend was in the opposite direction, with slightly faster location of uncued targets ( M = 415 ms) than cued targets ( M = 418 ms).

Additionally, 13‐s lagged neural synchrony showed a marginally significant negative association with externalizing problems at T1 ( r = −0.34, p = 0.06) and a significant negative association at T2 ( r = −0.56, p = 0.02).

More interestingly, the Proposed solution x Group interaction was marginally significant [ F (1.32) = 3.69, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0 . 10 ].

The marginal effect of time was driven by slightly better detection for changes that occurred after 500 ms (coinciding with trajectory changes in that condition, but note that there was no interaction) than those that occur shortly before, an effect that was marginally significant ( t (14) = 2.05, p = 0.06, d’ = 0.53), opposite to the behavioral cost associated with resetting.

Pairwise comparison of groups (Wilcoxon tests with Holm correction) revealed that the difference attributed to Picraminaceae was significant ( p -value ≪0.05) or marginally significant ( p -value = 0.06) with an exception of Aronia ( p -value = 0.20).

For ARI, care seeking from a recommended provider (a health facility) was significantly lower in the third (OR = 0.08, P = 0.004) and fourth (OR = 0.07, P = 0.01) quartiles in the univariable model, marginally lower in the fourth quartile (AOR = 0.05, P = 0.05) in the full model, and marginally significant for trend across distance quartiles ( P = 0.06).

INT adj problems were predicted by a three-way interaction of PH severity, squared basal cortisol, and chronic stress, which was marginally significant for parent-report, p = 0.06, and significant for self-report, p = 0.006, as shown in Table 4 .

The interaction between age group and emotion was marginally significant, F (1, 60) = 3.67, p = .060, = 0.06.

In fact, we observed marginally significant ( p = 0.06, Student's t -test for case 1 ) and significant ( p = 0.009) preference bias in gaze for the last half second and for the half second after the decision timing, respectively.

3B and table S3; estimate = −0.033, t = −2.953, P = 0.003 for seedlings; estimate = −0.072, t = −5.607, P < 0.001 for adults), with a marginally significant negative correlation with adult species asynchrony ( Fig. 3C and table S3; estimate = −0.019, t = −1.880, P = 0.060).

However, marginally significant lower levels of vitamin D were noted when two or more variables were present compared with none of the variables (23±11 vs 25±11 ng/mL; P =0.06) ( Table 3 ).

But the searching slope for Chinese subjects was steeper than that for Black subjects, with a marginally significant interaction of Set size and Race of participant, F (2, 82) = 2.93, p = .06, η p 2 = .07.

A three-factorial ANOVA with PL, RL, and OTL as between-subjects factors revealed a main effect of PL, F (1,145) = 15.78, p < 0.01, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.10 ( M = 89 ms for low PL and M = 201 ms for high PL), and a marginally significant effect of RL, F (1,145) = 3.63, p = 0.06, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.02 ( M = 118 ms for low RL and M = 172 ms for high RL).