Excerpts

The difference between semantically congruent and incongruent gestures just failed to reach significance [ t (127) =−2.24; p =0.02], No significant differences were found between meaningless configurations and semantically incongruent gestures.

It also barely failed to reach significance in the Central view condition at a running speed of 8 km/h ( t (11) = 2.666, p = 0.02 uncorrected, with an alpha adjusted to 0.01).

In the second practice period, however, the larger change score for group B (with reverse stick) compared to group A (with regular stick), just failed to reach significance (i.e., p = 0.020, with α = 0.017), but showed a large effect size ( d = 0.66).

The online samples showed marginally significant cultural differences as well, F (1, 222) = 6.02, p = 0.02.

Consequently, the initial model was estimated with all possible interactions (up to four-way) and, indeed, yielded several highly significant three-way interactions [omnibus test: F (15,46) = 2.14, p = 0.02, Adjusted R 2 = 0.22].

However, the interaction between group × distractor only approached significance according to our criterion of 0.01, F (7.80, 195.03) = 2.35, p = 0.021, η 2 = 0.09, and the interaction between group × target was not significant, F (3.821, 95.52) = 1.47, p = 0.218.

However, the scalar model showed a slight decrease in model fit (scalar: CFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.049), with a marginally significant chi-square difference test ( p = 0.021).

In older adults, for three categories this revealed significant or close to significance R 2 -values with positive slopes ( fractals , R 2 = 0.31, t -test p = 0.021; manmades , R 2 = 0.38, p = 0.015, pinks , R 2 = 0.22, p = 0.057).

Supportive PTA had a marginally significant positive association with BI ( β = 0.126, p = 0.021).

However, results suggest significant effects of housing conditions ( B = 0.191; p = 0.003) and marginally significant effects of training exposure (middle exposure: B = 0.4952; p = 0.0217) on cognitive trajectories.

These differences were highly significant ( p = 0.022 and p = 0.029, respectively).

An ANOVA of the SPEED revealed a marginally significant main effect of emotional face [ F (2, 78) = 4.23, p = 0.023, η p 2 = 0.10], suggesting that the SPEED was lower for happy faces than for fearful and neutral faces.

Nevertheless, a trend toward significance remained at the C3 electrode in the theta band between block 1 (corrected p = 0.024) and block 2 (corrected p = 0.072).

More precisely, we found cognitive abilities being marginally significant ( adjusted p = 0.025) and, along with COVID-19 interest, related to an increased tendency to report true memories.

At a presentation duration of 60 ms, the comparison between the more salient locations and the less salient locations and the comparison between the more salient locations and the background locations at a presentation duration of 240 ms just failed to reach significance under the Bonferroni corrections (60 ms, more salient vs. less salient: t (13) = 2.543, p = 0.025; 240 ms, more salient vs. background: t (13) = 2.653, p = 0.02).

For the olfactory condition the ANOVA indicated a marginally significant main effect of interval [ F (5,60) = 2.76, p = 0.026, η 2 = 0.19].

The same pattern was found for salary increase, but the conditional indirect effect was only marginally significant (interaction: c = −0.22, p = 0.028; −1 SD : cie = 0.11, p = 0.093; 0: cie = 0.04, p = 0.401; +1 SD : cie = −0.02, p = 0.679).

After correction, the time effect was marginally significant, F (1.64, 50.91) = 4.18, p = 0.028, with a partial η 2 of 0.12, reflecting a small-to-medium effect.

Family economic status was associated with broader differences: significant or marginally significant variation emerged for Prosocial Values and Interpersonal Skills ( p = 0.028), Emotional Understanding ( p = 0.035), and overall SEC ( p = 0.050).

Where PD primes featured non-prototypical animacy-semantic role mappings, there was a marginally significant effect of prime-target match, β = −2.33 ( SE = 1.07), z = −2.19, p = 0.029.

Furthermore, the difference between mean amplitudes for alternate uses ( M = −1.96, SE = 0.25) and common uses was marginally significant ( p = 0.03, d = 0.40).

The main effect of ethnicity was marginally significant, indicating slightly higher values for white B = –0.32 [–0.61, –0.03] compared to black participants, B = –0.11, p = 0.030.

No significant difference was observed in the positive dimension of vigor-activity; however, self-esteem showed a marginally significant improvement ( p = 0.03).

In fact, the SiCE was apparent only for pairs containing 1 [ F (1, 115) = 34.06, MSE = 166,254, η 2 p = 0.23], with no evidence of linear modulation (Figure 1C ), and was minimal and marginally significant for pairs without 1 [ F (1, 117) = 3.85, MSE = 32,329, η 2 p = 0.03] (Figure 1D ).

Neither CL-based agents (η = 0.005, SE = 0.004, p = 0.26) nor the FL-based and the IL-based agents ( FL-based: η = 0.001, SE = 0.004, p = 0.91, IL-based: η = 0.001, SE = 0.004, p = 0.83) are significantly different for subjects in terms of the probability of selecting DeckA, although the CIL-based selected slightly significant more DeckA than subjects (η = 0.01, SE = 0.005, p = 0.03).