Excerpts

When amusics were identified using the contour subtest of the MBEA, their performance in the low-pass filtered condition was still below that of controls (amusics mean = 62%, SD = 16%; controls mean = 70%, SD = 12%); however the difference was only marginally significant [ t (38) = 1.7, p = 0.09].

Suppression for Alternate trials relative to Different trials was not significant but showed a trend in that direction ( p = 0.09).

1 The VTA/SN activation for the OXTR rs53576 interaction at T2 was only marginally significant at p = 0.09.

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant, F (2, 71) = 2.50, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.02, as did the main effect of group , F (2, 71) = 2.45, p = 0.094, η p 2 = 0.04.

In both language groups, the younger children tended to be less accurate than the older children, although this difference approached significance for the monolingual children, t (60) = −1.75, p = 0.09 (95%CI of this difference [−0.21, 0.01]) and was significant for the bilingual children, t (60) = −3.71, p < 0.0001 (95%CI of this difference [−0.40, −0.12]).

There was a near-significant difference for the younger groups, t (64) = 1.72, p = 0.09 (95%CI of this difference [−0.02, 0.26]), but not the older groups, t (56) = 0.78, p = 0.44 (95%CI of this difference [−0.14, 0.06]).

However, a considerable portion of the variance remained unexplained ( R 2 = 0.41), and 19% of participants (95CI: 10–28%) misreported their behaviour, t (74) = −4.12, p < 0.001, but participants' tendency to misreport safety voice acts over safety silence was only a marginal trend, OR = 2.78, Wald (1) = 2.48, p = 0.09 (bootstrap sample = 1,000).

Orienting There was a marginally significant difference between CBT/MT and control groups in RT difference [ t (199) = 1.68, p = 0.09, Cohen's d = 0.24] and no significant differences in % correct difference scores [ t (199) = −1.06, p = 0.29].

Finally, obese participants displayed a marginally significant tendency to delay less than participants with a healthy weight ( t (132) = 1.69, p = 0.09, d = 0.307).

There was a marginally significant main effect for film condition [ F (5,135) = 2.09, p = 0.09, ε = 0.71, η p 2 = 0.07].

AON AON analyses demonstrated a marginal trend for the effect of movement intensity, F (2, 58) = 2.42, p = 0.09.

The combined group showed a trend of improvement on TMT-A (combined vs. control, p = 0.09) while memory group did not.

7 A follow-up analysis revealed the purchase x attitude x argument quality interaction was marginally significant b = 0.08 SE = 0.05, t (226) = 10.72, p = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.17].

However, the reduction in the levels of risky online behavior was only marginally significant across the period, t (205) = 1.72, p = 0.09.

Although the interaction effect was not significant, it has to be noted that in the unfair precue condition, there was a marginally significant simple slope for the regression of the endorsement of unjust foils on victim sensitivity, B = 0.32, t (27) = 1.76, p = 0.09.

Push) ANOVA indicated a marginally significant Two-Way interaction [ F (1, 49) = 2.93, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.057]: Pulling the lever with positive words was a little faster [ t (49) = 1.054, p = 0.297.] than pushing, whereas pulling the lever with negative words [ t (49) = 1.742, p = 0.088] was slower than pushing.

Pairwise comparison between left and right ATR groups showed a trend for pleasant odors ( p = 0.09) but not for unpleasant odors ( p = 0.21).

Within the temporal measures, a nearly significant group effect was observed in the response time (β = -309.90, p = 0.09), while no group effect was observed in the initiation time (β = -309.90, p = 0.30) and in the motion time (β = -230.80, p = 0.13).

Additionally, a correlation analysis was run between average SCRs for each round and total number of strikes, bordered on significance ( r = 0.82, p = 0.090).

The difference between the sign learners and the fluent signers was not quite significant ( z = 2.08, p = 0.09).

Moreover, the correlation coefficients of MEIV increased in the post-test of the empirical priming compared to the counterfactual condition, with a significance ( p < 0.01) appearing in the behavioral intentions of MEC and MEE and a marginal significance ( p = 0.09) in the MEIH.

The analysis revealed a significant intercept, F (1, 16.07) = 7.37, p = 0.02, indicating above chance performance, and a marginally significant effect of inference, F (3, 9.26) = 2.88, p = 0.09.

Patients who used benzodiazepines (Bz.) regularly or occasionally showed a trend toward lesser reduction on the primary outcome of avoidance than the other patients in the study both pre-post (Bz. = 1.19, no Bz. = 1.79, p = 0.09) and pre-12 months FU (Bz. = 1.13, no Bz. = 1.64, p = 0.19), and no difference between CBT or TFT ( p = 0.80).

Moreover, the P2 amplitudes during the RS condition showed marginal significance than during the NS condition, t = 0.64, p = 0.09.

There was a marginally significant main effect of language, F (1,70) = 2.94, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.04, suggesting the English-speaking children ( M = 0.40, SD = 1.96) were more likely to imitated the demonstrated manner versus the path.