Excerpts

For the post-silence events, only the DM exposure group demonstrated slower RT for Block 6 in comparison to the surrounding exposure blocks, even if this learning score fell short of significance, F (1, 45) = 3.17, 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).

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).

The one-year findings showed borderline significant findings ( p =0.08) for motilin – the hormone regulating gut activity mentioned above – and self-reported IBS pain according to scores in the standardized questionnaire (p=0.08).

Correlation results There was a significant correlation between the N2 amplitude and hit rate in Comp-ND condition (−0.78, p < 0.01) and almost significant in simple delay condition (−0.53, p = 0.08).

In both cases, the Pearson’s chi-square test returned a result close to significance, χ 2 (1, N = 32) = 3.03, p = 0.08, with a moderate effect size (φ = 0.31), and χ 2 (1, N = 30) = 3.45, p = 0.06, with a moderate effect size (φ = 0.34).

Interaction effect The interaction effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lower frequencies; however, since establishing a possible interaction between context and word class was one of the central issues behind this work, we also tested the simple effects.

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.

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 ).

First, there appears to be a drop again in mean density of %REC (29.4, 22.5, 22.1%), but this is only marginally significant, t (23) = 1.6, p = 0.08.

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.

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

A marginally significant difference was observed at 6 months [χ 2 (1) = 3.10, p = 0.08], and no significant difference was observed in the other two age groups [10-month-olds: χ 2 (1) = 0.10, p = 0.80; adults: χ 2 (1) = 2.10, p = 0.20], suggesting that the detection of vowel or consonant change was affected similarly by vocoding in the three groups.

The main effect of face race approached significance, F (1, 48) = 3.28, p < 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.06, where same-race faces were matched faster than other-face races.

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

Additionally, the effect of reference class totals only approached significance, F (1,231) = 3.12, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.01 [Wald C 2 (1, N = 236) = 3.12, p = 0.08, OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.04].

However, preservation ICs were more important than violation ICs in T2 and T3 in good readers ( p s < 0.0001), and only in T3 in poor readers ( p < 0.0003; marginally significant in T2, p < 0.08).

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).

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 results of Model 3 show significant direct and positive effects of Lead entrepreneur attractiveness [unstandardized beta (B) = 0.232, p = 0.001] and VC investor attractiveness ( B = 0.138, p = 0.038), while the interaction term is negative and approached significance ( B = −0.113, p = 0.080).

(2012) further reported that the correlation between the number of years of musical training received and auditory working memory ability was “marginally significant” ( r = 0.38, p = 0.08), strongly implying that musical training was causally responsible for the measured between-group difference.

Similarly, in familiar sequences the tone lengthened longest and execution IKIs more in the counting than in the no-counting condition, F (1,46) = 8.5, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.16, while here lengthening was marginally significant for T 1 , F (1,46) = 3.1, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.06.