Excerpts

When examining intra-individual change for the entire sample of participants ( n = 42) that completed the hula program, there was a highly significant outcome on total physical activity ( p < 0.0001), moderate exercise ( p < 0 0.0001), and mild exercise ( p < 0.0001).

Results Relationship between Maternal LOC and IQ at 8 The unadjusted difference between the mean IQ of 8-year-old children whose mothers were external compared to those who were internally oriented showed deficits of 7.33, 5.29, and 7.23 IQ points for the verbal, performance and full IQ scales, respectively ( Table 2 ); each was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

The RPE was strongly positively correlated with consumptive indicators (e.g., fatigue, delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS); r = 0.51) but moderately negatively correlated with restorative indicators (e.g., sleep quality; r = −0.45), with the difference between these groups being highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The results show a highly significant CONNECTIVE × EADV interaction (LRT = 56.92, p < 0.0001), see Table 6 and Figure 3 .

The association between the inner brow raiser and eye movements was highly significant (χ 2 MH = 1322.1, df = 1, P < 0.0001; N = 21).

The difference between the two averages of the peak heart rate was highly significant ( p = 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, W = −225, n s/ r = 21, z = −3.9).

Concerning attention behavior during familiarization, a repeated-measures ANOVA with looking time as dependent measure, language group (Catalan, Spanish, bilingual) and familiarization condition (TB or GM) as a between-group factors and trial (first, last) as repeated measures revealed a highly significant effect of familiarization trial [ F (1, 48) = 42.9; p = 0.0001; η 2 = 0.47], and no effect of language group or condition and no significant interactions [familiarization trial × language group: F (2, 48) = 1.15; p = 0.32; η 2 = 0.04; familiarization trial × condition: F (1, 48) = 1.7; p = 0.19; η 2 = 0.03; familiarization trial × language group × condition: F < 1].

Importantly, the interaction of Language Type and Order was very highly significant [ F (1, 38) = 60.56, p < 0.0001], because IF phrases abounded in OV, FI phrases in VO languages.

This pattern held for each subject; the least significant subject still rated 73% of the static images as less flattering than the corresponding movies (652 out of 882), a highly significant effect [χ 2 (1) = 201, p < 0.0001].

For the PMHS, the KMO amounted to 0.955 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Results Cathodal group Transcranial direct current stimulation produced a very highly significant effect in the cathodal group, as demonstrated by a significant main effect of stimulation condition ( p < 0.0001) (Table 1 ).

However, that for the ‘Fiction’ condition is highly significant (r 2 = 0.388; F 1,39 = 24.75, p < 0.0001).

A mixed-effects model ANOVA found a highly significant effect of the period (13 vs. 17 months) on the likelihood of pointing during touching by caregivers ( F (1, 27) = 62.69, p < 0.0001), which showed that toddlers were less likely to point while the caregiver were touching toddlers to assist them when they were 17 months old, compared to when they were 13 months old.

The test for heterogeneity was highly significant [ Q ( df = 34) = 577.47, p < 0.0001].

The output of this comparison shows the difference between the models to be highly significant ( Χ 2 (1) = 66.32, p < 0.0001), and the smaller AIC and BIC values and higher log likelihood of the full model also indicate the importance of mean word length as a predictor of the number of tonal contrasts ( Box 2 ).

In addition to our crucial comparison of the two interference effects, the modulation of the load over the benefits observed for the valid condition was clearly significant, χ 2 (1) = 374.11, p < 0.0001; in fact, we observed (see Figure 7 ) a much larger modulation for the benefits (64 ms larger for high compared to low perceptual load), than for the costs (11 ms larger for high perceptual load).

A non-parametric trend test revealed a significant trend in their responses (Page’s trend test, z = 5.16, p < 0.0001).

Convergent validity between SDMT and c-SDMT was highly significant ( r = −0.794, p < 0.0001).

The KMO was 0.91, while Bartlett’s test for sphericity yielded extremely significant results (χ 2 = 13,958.572; p < 0.0001).

As illustrated in Figure 1B , in the mixed ANOVA run on mean correct RTs, the critical interaction between alignment and congruency was highly significant, F (1,127) = 14.6, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.10, MSE = 174.

Friedman tests revealed that the effect of combination of dimension and set on mean scores was highly significant for both high-fear subjects (Friedman chi-squared 3 = 123.57, p < 0.0001) and low-fear subjects (Friedman chi-squared 3 = 234.94, p < 0.0001).

This showed highly significant results ( t = −6.01, p < 0.0001).

The difference between WS individuals and TD controls is highly significant [ t (35) = 6.56, p < 0.0001, two-tailed, with an effect size Cohen’s d = 2.23].

Further, comparing the 100–300 and 300–500 ms time-windows directly using the pre-stimulus baseline demonstrates a highly significant C ondition × T ime-window × AP interaction [ F (1, 25) = 31.45, p < 0.0001].

The difference was highly significant [ t (174) = 5.48, p < 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 1.04].