The results of Experiment 1 are highly significant ( p < 0.0001), and suggest that the difficulty in perceptually synthesizing a coherent amodally completed surface impaired the ability to detect depth differences in the display containing the alternating red and blue cycles.
Excerpts
Critically, the main effect of Emotion type was highly significant [ F 1 (1,59) = 200.95, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.23; F 2 (1,18) = 8.84, p < 0.009, η 2 = 0.27], as putatively basic emotions ( M = 5.72) were rated higher than non-basic emotions ( M = 4.61).
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).
All differences turned out highly significant ( 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).
Thus, we can retain hypothesis HG 2 and can, by means of a simple t -test, even show that the difference in means is highly significant ( p < 10 −4 ).
Results The random effect on our logistic regression model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), suggesting that subjects varied in their musicality ratings of original order vs. temporally randomized songs of this sample of avian species.
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.
The first model was found to be highly significant, F ( 5 , 108 ) = 13.15, p < 0.0001, explaining 37% of the variance in the EAT-26.
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.
For all three emotions, the effect was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
This showed highly significant results ( t = −6.01, p < 0.0001).
The difference was highly significant [ t (174) = 5.48, p < 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 1.04].
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 ).
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].
Consistent with the target data, the effect of generation rate on CS1 was highly significant in all four simulations, with a very large effect size [Simulation 1A: F (5, 94.47) = 82.43, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.64; Simulation 1B: F (5, 96.54) = 65.16, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.71; Simulation 2A: F (5, 95.53) = 74.62, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.65; Simulation 2B: F (5, 97.278) = 29.85, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.54].
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].
The results show a highly significant CONNECTIVE × EADV interaction (LRT = 56.92, p < 0.0001), see Table 6 and Figure 3 .
The difference in the face recognition thresholds between DS individuals and TD controls was highly significant ( Z = -4.293, p < 0.0001, two-tailed; effect size, η 2 = 0.45).
Interestingly, we found a highly significant interaction effect between Distribution Type and Standard Vowel [ F (1,18) = 20.22, p = 0.0003, η p 2 = 0.53], which shows that the attested difference between unimodally and bimodally trained Dutch 2-to-3-month olds differs depending on the standard that they hear in the oddball test (see section Exploratory Results for the Four Groups).
Benefit For this case, the global Pearson’s chi-squared values were highly significant ( x 2 = 23430.50, df = 16; p < 0.0005).
Four groups had extremely significant differences in personality of Reasoning ( F = 18.852, P < 0.0005), Apprehension ( F = 21.856, P < 0.0005), and Sensitivity ( F = 7.092, P < 0.001).
First, all independent factors plus an interaction between norm violation and temporal order yield Pearson (χ 2 = 46.441; p = 0.224) and Cox & Snell = 0.490 with all factors highly significant, p < 0.0005.
The multiple linear regression model that included all EMG responses (corrugator and zygomaticus) per condition was highly significant F (12, 22) = 5.092, p = 0.0005.
Difference between the mean values of the WFs for the four shortest and four longest ICIs proved to be highly significant [ t (9) = 7.21, p < 0.0005].