Excerpts

In comparison to the baseline model including only intercepts for fixed and random effects, the addition of a fixed effect of piece significantly improved the fit of the models for articulation and velocity ( p < 0.001 in both cases), but was only marginally significant in the case of asynchrony ( 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].

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).

Mothers’ Utterances Emotion terms: Negative There was a marginally significant main effect of maternal utterances of negative emotion terms on child internalizing problems, F (1, 51)=3.18, p =0.08, η p 2 =0.06, M(SD) Talk =1.50 (0.20), M ( SD ) Not Talk =1.58 (0.26).

As for the P2, there was a marginally significant effect of facial expressions [ F (3,174) = 2.25, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.04].

The post-hoc linear contrast was significant, F (1, 121) = 116.48, p < 0.001; however, the correlation between mean biphone probability and community size was marginally significant, p = 0.08.

There was a marginally significant difference in the amount of first-person singular forms between phase 1 ( M = 5.19, SD = 5.77) and phase 2 ( M = 4.35, SD = 4.46); t 220 = 1.71, p = 0.08.

3 This relation is nearly significant, p = 0.08, but can only have occurred by chance as the number of probes presented was independent of MW-S scores.

The results of the comparison analysis between all deaf and hearing children (see Figure 1 ) show significant differences in the inattention subscale ( U = 76; p = 0.007) and conduct disorder subscale ( U = 38; p = 0.000), and a marginally significant difference in impulsivity/hyperactivity ( t = −1.787; p = 0.08).

As can be seen in Figure 4 , the overall fixation difference between the orthographic and unrelated conditions was not significant, p = 0.4, but there was a marginally significant interaction of orthographic (vs. unrelated) condition by orthographic similarity, β = 0.28, SE = 0.16, z = 1.7, p = 0.08, suggesting that the participants’ tendency to fixate the orthographic competitor over the unrelated object was stronger when the orthographic similarity was higher.

The interaction between environment and exercise was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.34, p = 0.08, and η p 2 = 0.11, suggesting that negative affect decreased more after exercise in the indoor condition than in the outdoor condition, see Table 1 .

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

Analysis of simple-main effects of care leaver status for each level of velocity revealed that, after correction for multiple comparisons, the effect of care-leaver status at 3 cm/s was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Furthermore, a Sobel test ( Sobel, 1982 ) indicated that the mediating effect of the number of close friends was marginally significant ( z = -1.75, p = 0.08).

P1 At 100 ms, amplitudes over the RH were slightly larger than those over the LH, although this effect only approached significance: F (1,12) = 3.48, MSe = 4.19, η p 2 = 0.23, p = 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).

(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.

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 interaction between condition and adherence showed a trend of statistical significance, F (1,12) = 3.65, p = 0.080, which means that visual imagery (QMI) could be a moderator of the effect of the condition on adherence, accounting for 13.98% of the variance.

Repeated-measures ANOVA on the ACC of emotional faces suggested that the main effect of the test was marginally significant ( F (2, 58) = 2.56, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.04), and the post-hoc t -test found that the ACC of pre-test was higher than that of mid- and post-test ( p < 0.05), with no significant difference between the mid- and post-test ( p > 0.05).

Compared with the low-risk class, age had no significant effects on the likelihood of being in a particular cluster; while gender (female) had a marginally significant effect on predicting the membership of the moderate-risk class ( OR = 1.407, p = 0.080) and a significant effect on predicting the membership of the high-risk class ( OR = 2.485, p = 0.080).

Within the visual motion ROI, there were significant effects of action similarity [ F (2, 22) = 8.3, p = 0.002] and format type [ F (2, 22) = 7.0, p = 0.005], and a marginally significant interaction between the two [ F (4, 44) = 2.2, p = 0.08] (Figure 4A ).

Second, we observed a marginally significant two-way interaction [ F (1,36) = 3.15, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.08] between Gender (Male vs.

By contrast, in the Opposite Perspective condition, the pattern was reversed, though only marginally significant, with the majority (60%) of participants placing the “good” animal on their left (i.e., on Bob’s right: 51 left = good vs. 34 right = good, sign test p = 0.08).

Importantly, this main effect of parental role was qualified by a marginally significant interaction with parental role salience manipulation, F (1,95) = 3.04, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.031.