Excerpts

This analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between target size and feedback factor, F (9, 189) = 1.8, p = 0.079, η 2 p = 0.077 (additionally to a significant main effect of target size, see above).

The between-subjects effect of age was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.141, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.023, such that older children walked with lower normalized velocity than younger children.

For the GD, the difference between regular and homophone phonograms was significant ( b = 28.52, SE = 13.68, t = 2.084, p < 0.05), and the difference between semi-regular and homophone phonograms was marginally significant ( b = 24.12, SE = 13.72, t = 1.758, p = 0.079).

The association between environmental attitudes and behavior was marginally significant, F (1, 138) = 3.13, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022, meaning that there was a trend for participants with higher levels of environmental attitudes to select environment-friendly options when printing (Cohen’s d = 0.30).

The statistical results of mean accuracy revealed a significant main effect of radical markings [ F (1, 38) = 9.45, p = 0.004, ηp 2 = 0.20], a marginally significant main effect of stroke order animations [ F (1, 38) = 3.27, p = 0.079, ηp 2 = 0.08] and a significant main effect of testing time [ F (1, 38) = 106.04, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.74].

An interaction between group and test was marginally significant [ F (2,52) = 2.66, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.09].

Differences Between Vignettes According to the results of the four-way ANOVA reported above, the three-way interaction between vignette, dimension of mind, and target of attribution was marginally significant [ F (2,224) = 2.56, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022].

We found a marginally significant interaction between session and phase [ F (1, 14) = 3.716, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.21].

The two conditions showed a statistical trend to differ reliably from each other (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, N = 5, Z = 1.75, p = 0.080).

The main effect of pre-/post-test was close to significance, F (1, 44) = 3.3, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating a small practice effect.

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).

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.

The correlation with the level of regularity of tactile image practice was also positive, but marginally significant ( τ = 0.22, p = 0.08).

Finally, a marginally significant ( p < 0.08) interaction of Task Choice and ERPI/IRSI emerged, F (2,154) = 2.69, MSE = 0.00057, being due to the fact that restricted task choices went along with a smaller ER (3.5%) than unrestricted task choices (4.5%) with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-2,000, whereas with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-100 and 2,000-100, ERs were virtually the same ( p ’s < 0.36) with unrestricted and restricted choices (3.2 vs. 3.1% and 3.6 vs. 3.4%, respectively).

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Feedback salience ( p = 0.08), and a marginally significant interaction between Age group and Feedback salience ( p = 0.09).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between time and group, F (1, 87) = 2.19, p = 0.08, n 2 p = 0.09.

Self-touch Nearly three quarters of boys and just over half of girls showed self-touching behaviours during eye-tracking (approaching significance trend, χ 2 = 3.06, p = 0.08; see Supplementary Table S4 ).

The one exception was the indirect effect for family interference with work, although even this effect was marginally significant and in the predicted direction, p = 0.08.

Higher IQ was associated with better recall of all VAMT-26 outcomes (β range: 0.05–0.64, p s ≤ 0.04), except for STM Negative, which was of borderline significance ( p = 0.08).

A marginally significant main effect of target, F (1,48) = 3.13, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.40, showed that participants tended to rate the truthful target as more deceptive ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.55) than the lying target ( M = 3.40, SD = 1.19).

Moreover, the Sobel test showed that the mediating effect of cultural values was marginally significant, Z = 1.77, p = 0.08 ( Figure 3A ).

In Attriters, only a main effect of C was marginally significant at midline sites [ F (1,23) = 3.26, p = 0.08].

This might be partially due to the BO-Condition showing large RT-differences between regular and deviant trials from Block 1 on [ F (1, 37) = 17.68, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.323] whereas the RO- Condition merely showed a trend of an increasing difference between regular and deviant trials, when comparing Block 1 with Block 6 [ F (1, 37) = 3.24, p = 0.080, η p 2 = 0.081].

Differences in SOAs in training session 1 between the patient and control group just failed to reach significance [ t (23) = 2.2; p = 0.08, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons].

The main effect of Target Position was marginally significant, F (2,76) = 2.5, p = 0.08, MSE = 0.00352, and only modulated by Version, F (2,76) = 5.2, p < 0.01, MSE = 0.00352.