“marginally significant”

The average values of eLORETA current density (log transformed) at different cortical regions were summarized in Figure 2(d) and were compared using ANOVA with factors of “ROI” and “group.” It revealed a main effect of “ROI” ( F = 50.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.62) where alpha oscillatory power at the parietal and occipital lobes were greater, but the main effect of “group” was marginally significant ( F = 2.93, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.086) suggesting that patients tend to exhibit greater alpha oscillation power.

However, in self-user specific device condition, the Bonferroni multiple pairwise comparison showed that there was a marginally significant difference between congruent condition ( M = 0.79, SD = 0.19) and incongruent condition ( M = 0.85, SD = 0.20, p = 0.097) in self-specific devices condition.

This analysis demonstrated that contingency was still a marginally significant predictor of sensorimotor alpha suppression at post-test, beta = −.554, p = .097 (lower 95% CI = −1.531, upper 95% CI = .156).

For the head we observed a significant main effect of valence ( F 1,90 = 18.32, p <0.001), with more positive values for positive than negative scenarios, no significant main effect of scenario ( F 3,270 = 1,17, p = 0.323) and a marginally significant interaction valence x scenario ( F 3,270 = 2.12, p = 0.097).

None of these covariates were significant although T-stage was marginally significant (p = 0.097) ( table 2 ).

There was a marginally significant main effect of Response Side ( b = –0.0076, t = –1.6574, p = .097), with a tendency to respond slower with the left hand.

Besides, the analysis also showed that the interaction variable of exposure × social support was a marginally significant predictor of outgroup attribution (β = −0.10, se = 0.01, p = 0.097).

Such a facilitation effect of processing negative words on responses to the bottom spatial targets was also marginally significant [ F 1 (1,47) = 2.87, p = 0.097, ηp 2 = 0.06; F 2 (1,286) = 3.07, p = 0.081, ηp 2 = 0.01].

Interaction between the two factors was marginally significant [ F (1, 18) = 3.083, p < 0.097].

Firstly, we revealed a marginally significant negative TGP × FGA × unemployment interaction effect ( β = −0.06, p = 0.097) on the chance of starting VET (DV1_start).

Correlation Between the BRCALncSig and Chemo-Response To examine whether the BRCALncSig correlated with the likelihood of CR, we plotted the percentage of patients achieving CR against the BRCALncSig and found that there is a marginally significant negative correlation between the BRCALncSig and CR (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.55, p = 0.097) ( Figure 5A ).

On the other hand, the recognition of local features in angry faces showed marginally significant longer response time than that in happy faces [ F (1, 13) = 3.21, p = 0.097] (Figure 3B ).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of WM on the N400 amplitudes in the high SL‐ON group (F(1, 12.0) = 3.24, p = 0.097) but no effect of WM in the low SL‐ON group ( F (1, 13.0) = 0.63, p = 0.442).

When verifying hypothesis 2.3, the ANCOVA for heart rate variability as a dependent variable showed a marginally significant effect for low vision accessibility features ( F ( 1 , 18 ) = 3.034 , p = 0.097 , η 2 = 0.026 , C o h e n ′ s F = 0.41 , p w r = 0.41 ), showing marginally lower HRV for websites with low vision accessibility enhancements ( M = 0.155 , S E = 0.124 ) than for websites without those adjustments ( M = 0.481 , S E = 0.124 ).

Patient Participation Analyses showed a marginally significant difference in number of words used by the patient during the consultation between the control condition and the experimental condition ( F = 2.97, p = .097).

In the second training phase, there was again a significant main effect of target color, F (2,62) = 11.67, P < 0.001, η 2 P = 0.274, but no main effect of block, F < 1, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2,62) = 2.42, P = 0.097, η 2 P = 0.072.

The main effect of base attractiveness was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 2.901, p = 0.097, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\eta_{p}^{2}$$\end{document} η p 2 = 0.071.

SH+ demonstrated a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.097) in reducing anxiety and post-traumatic symptomatology (Riello et al. , 2021 ).

In addition, the theta power for the restrained eaters under the no-think condition was much higher (marginally significant) than that under the think condition for high-calorie food stimuli ( p = 0.097), which was not identified in the control group.

The effect of food is marginally significant at 13°C ( F (1, 285) = 2.77; P = 0.097), but still the biphasic growth model gave better performance in ‘fed’ condition compared with the ‘non-fed’ condition ( Fig. 3A ).

Among the poor breath-hold cases, no significant difference was observed between overall image quality between LAVA Star navi+ and Cartesian LAVA navi+ ; however, these differences were marginally significant ( P = 0.0971).

The improvements in components that were not statistically significant were as follows: role limitations due to emotional problems improved by 20 units (64.3%, marginally significant, p = 0.0975), social functioning improved by 3.1 units (6%), and perceived health change improved by 3.3 units (10.4%).

Additionally, the interactions AB (straw fiber content × straw fiber length) and AC (straw fiber content × silica aerogel content) are not significant ( P > 0.05), while the BC (straw fiber length × silica aerogel content) interaction is marginally significant ( P = 0.098).

After correcting for multiple comparisons, the Group x Type interaction became marginally significant (F(1,72) = 4.01, p = 0.098, η 2 = 0.00), indicating a trend for Harm – No Harm differences to be greater in the low risk group than the high risk group (t(72.75) = −1.89, FDR q = 0.62).

In follow-up analyses there was a marginally significant effect for reward group on the drift rate in incongruent trials, t (403.85) = −1.66, p = .098, Cohen’s d = −0.16, 95% CI [−0.36–0.03].