“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant effect of condition ( F (1,16) = 3.44, P = 0.08, η 2 = 0.18), showing that more saccades in the “similar” than the “different” condition predicted the Dm effect.

The covariate of using GSN apps to seek male sexual partners in the past 3 months had a marginally significant statistical association with HIV incidence (aHR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9-7.9, P =.08).

The direct actor effect of Partner A’s general stress communication on his/her own interaction quality was marginally significant, b = 0.84, SE = 0.48, p = 0.08, and further, the partner-partner indirect effect was statistically significant, b = -0.93, SE = 0.31, p = 0.002.

There was a marginally significant interaction between Target Category and Saccade Accuracy (F 1,23 = 3.33, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.126), suggesting that the difference in latencies according to the target stimulus was more pronounced for correct (25 ms difference with 187 ± 17 ms for Face target and 212 ± 26 ms for Vehicle target) than error saccades (14 ms difference with 175 ± 30 ms for Face target and 189 ± 21 ms for Vehicle target).

CeMV seropositive dolphins had a marginally significant reduction in the absolute number of CD4+ helper T cells ( p = 0.08).

Levels of perceived stress, t (31) = −1.87, P = .07; and negative affect t (32) = −1.91, P = .06; were marginally significant ( P values < .08) at the follow-up compared to baseline.

There were no significant associations between depression and any of the built and social environment measures of the neighborhood, except for the total length of space with public lighting, which was marginally significant (p = 0.08).

To ascertain that these lesion effects were task-specific (task: spatial-variant/temporal-variant), we ran three separate mixed-design, repeated-measures ANOVAs considering only the CON and sdlPFC groups with group as a between-subjects variable and task as a within-subjects variable and confirmed a marginally significant task × group interaction on SDT meta-d′/d′ ( F (1,7) = 4.194, p = 0.080) and on hierarchical-model meta-d′/d′ ( F (1,7) = 4.599, p = 0.069), as well as a slightly weaker effect on φ ( F (1,7) = 1.939, p = 0.206).

Model 3 (SR → GS rate → SCR) showed a marginally significant mediation effect ( p = .08) ( Table 1 ).

S2B ] , but the trends followed a similar pattern as seed production, with a marginally significant snowmelt × fungal treatment interaction ( P = 0.080).

However, the univariate Blomberg's K tests seemed to lack power ( K = 0.99, p = .139; K = 0.76, p = .895 for the first two niche PCoA‐based niche distance axes, Figure 4 ) and when testing each environmental variable in turn, only monthly mean precipitation showed a marginally significant signal (Blomberg's K test: K = 0.87, p = .08; Table S2 ). 3.3.

Post hoc analyses indicated that laypersons (mean 1.50, SD 0.71) reported significantly lower knowledge than students (mean 3.50, SD 0.71; P =.04) and psychotherapists (mean 5.00, SD 0; P =.01), with the last 2 groups having a marginally significant difference from each other ( P =.08).

When the hypothesized three-way interaction was included in the third step, this changed the model in a marginal significant way, Δ F (1,343) = 3.07, p = 0.08, R 2 = 0.09, Δ R 2 = 0.01, and the Moral Argumentation × Prior behavior × Moral Identity interaction was marginally significant ( B = 0.21, p = 0.08).

The group by type interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 29) = 3.27, p = 0.08.

For ovaries, the correlation is significantly greater (empirical p = 0.04) and for bodies, the correlation is marginally significant (empirical p = 0.08).

Although we did not find a significant difference in expression of one-to-one toxin orthologs compared to duplicated or conserved toxins ( p = 0.28), we did find a marginally significant interaction between species and expression of one-to-one orthologs versus duplicated or conserved toxins ( p = 0.08, Fig. 7 ).

Pauses (In-Air Pen Duration) Between the Preposition and the Article 2 The orthographic consistency factor had a marginally significant effect in the analysis conducted on in-air pen duration (or pause) between the preposition and the article 2 , F (1,18.313) = 3.28, p = 0.08 ( Estimate = 24.39, SE = 18.31).

The effect was also marginally significant for T2D (p<0.08; PERMANOVA).

A highly significant main effect of face type, F 1 , 177 = 61.21, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.26, was accompanied by a marginally significant interaction between face type and race of observer, F 3 , 177 = 2.32, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.08.

non-predictive) and Epoch (1–5) on performance correct yielded a marginally significant main effect of Epoch, F (4, 44) = 2.25, p = .08, η p 2 = .17 (with a marginal linear increase in accuracy with Epoch: 91, 93, 93, 93, 95% for Epochs 1 to 5, F (1, 11) = 4.04, p = .07, η p 2 = .27).

Bonferonni-corrected comparisons between saccade amplitudes across experiment at each level of saccade direction axis and stimulus type revealed only a few marginally significant differences between amplitudes across experiments (all t < 2.19, p > 0.08).

Results for the low reactive group revealed only a marginally significant main effect of set size, F (3123) = 2308, p = 0.080, and results for the high reactive group revealed no significant effects ( Figure 7 ).

This attenuation was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

More importantly, the interaction between the PSA condition and target group was marginally significant ( F = 1.88, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.99; p = .08), suggesting that the effect of PSA condition on the dependent variables differed between the target and non-target groups.

By performing a 2 way-ANOVA on expression of BHLH059 , PIF4 and PR1 , SA contents and Pst DC3000 bacterial counts at 0 and 4 dpi in response to genotype and temperature in this set of mutant lines, we found that temperature significantly affects all our variables except bHLH059 expression where it is marginally significant (p-value = 0.08) and bacterial counts at 0 dpi, in line with results shown in S5 Fig .