Planned tests showed that the close condition differed significantly from the unrelated condition in the analysis by participants, t 1(63) = 2.16, p = 0.034, and just failed to reach significance by items, t 2(15) = 2.12, p = 0.051.
The difference between the first and second transfer phases approached significance (Mean Difference = −0.456, p = 0.051), with a Cohen’s d of-1.813, reflecting a large effect size but indicating that this difference was less consistent or reliable compared to the other comparisons ( Table 2 ) ( Figure 5 ). 5 Discussion The present study investigated the impact of implicit and explicit learning on motor task performance across three sessions.
The effect of mothers’ share of child care on children’s communal occupational aspirations was not moderated by child gender ( p = 0.885), but the interaction between mothers’ share of child care and child age approached significance ( p = 0.051) 8 .
Indirect connections from the STP were also significantly greater in the water condition with the insula ( p = 0.021), the ACC ( p = 0.017), the hippocampus ( p = 0.027), and marginally significant with the amygdala ( p = 0.051).
A 2 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors target type (no-onset, onset) and number of onsets (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 items) revealed a marginally significant main effect for target type, F (1, 11) = 4.78, p = 0.051, due to the somewhat higher error rate with no-onset targets than with onset targets (3.7 vs. 2.7%, respectively).
There was a marginally significant effect of “time period” on general stress scores: F (1.87,216.49) = 3.10, p = 0.051.
As for the balanced trials, group effect was marginally significant, F (1,38) = 4.07, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.09 and math anxiety did not interact with number of digits ( p = 0.75).
Implicit processes Across all participants, the EOT-TAS scores' correlation with accuracy in the implicit task barely missed significance [ r (46) = −0.28, t = −1.98, p = 0.051].
And also showed a marginally significant ( p = 0.051) effect on learning.
Conscientiousness showed a marginally significant negative correlation with NA ( r = −0.231, p = 0.051), while extraversion and agreeableness were not significantly related to overall NA ( p > 0.05).
The interaction of time × basepower showed a trend ( F 3,75 = 2.703, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.098), while the factor group ( F 1, 25 = 0.931, p = 0.344, η 2 = 0.036) and the interaction time × mismatch did not reach significance ( F 3,75 = 1.478, p = 0.227, η 2 = 0.056).
The relationship with the patient was a nearly significant predictor of the affiliate stigma (F-ratio = 2.251; p = 0.051) ( Table 3 ).
There were additional marginally significant indirect effects on child’s self-regulation (β = 0.03, p = 0.051) and receptive vocabulary (β = 0.03, p = 0.072) through the frequency of shared activities.
In the total filled area control, cardinality knowledge was the only significant predictor when children saw comparisons involving the 2:3 (β = 0.62; p = 0.005) and 3:4 (β = 0.73; p < 0.001) ratios, while in the 1:2 ratio, cardinality knowledge was marginally significant (β = 0.44; p = 0.051): CP-knowers are better at discriminating two quantities involving 2:3 and 3:4 ratios than non-CP-knowers.
Consistent with the Indifference Points analyses, there was a marginally significant difference between the steepness of the discount rates overall in the nap and wake tasks within subjects [ F (1,18) = 4.375, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.196], and similarly a marginally significant decrease in steepness when comparing k before and after a nap or wake interval [ F (1,18) = 3.677, p = 0.071, η p 2 = 0.170].
A T-test was performed, finding with marginal significance longer RTs for congruent ( M = 2.331 s, SD = 0.752) compared to incongruent ( M = 2.041 s, SD = 0.471) trials, t (31) = -2.03, p = 0.051.
Statistical appraisal by means of Egger’s test of regression produced a significant intercept ( β 0 = 2.34, 95% CI: 0.68–4.01, p = 0.008), suggesting funnel plot asymmetry beyond chance, and Begg’s rank correlation test revealed borderline significance (Kendall’s τ = 0.31, p = 0.051), offering supporting evidence for possible publication bias.
Infants showed a marginally significant preference for the impossible events compared to the matched possible events ( M = 0.33 s, SD = 1.29, t (43) = 1.67, p = 0.051).
Relatedness had a near-significant effect on plausibility ( B = 0.09, p = 0.051).
Although the variable” perceived health status” was not retained in the final model, it demonstrated marginal significance in the initial model ( p = 0.051) with a negative regression coefficient ( β = −0.287).
Another multiple regression on the total number of blocks to reach the learning criterion against both distances led to a nearly significant standardized coefficient for the Within-Cluster Distance (β = 0.269, p = 0.051), ending up with a global non-significant fit [ F (2,51) = 2.28, NS].
However, a chi-squared test examining the distribution of low-accuracy performers (<65%) across bilinguals and monolinguals was marginally significant, Chi-Squared ( df = 1) = 3.8, p = 0.051, suggesting different distributions of lower learning outcomes in the bilinguals vs. monolinguals (see Participants Section).
After completing the 30-shot task, only a borderline significant improvement was found in session 5 ( p = 0.051), indicating a possible short-term adaptation effect.
For men, two-way ANOVA analysis did not show clearly significant results between PRE and POST salivary OXT level, in either the “social positive” vs “social negative” sample [ F (1, 7) = 5.564, p = 0.051] ( Supplementary Figure S5B ), or in the “social positive” vs “non-social” sample [ F (1, 21) = 0.029, p = 0.865] ( Supplementary Figure S5D ).
There was also a main effect of TYPE in the subjects [ F 1(1, 20) = 19.23, p < 0.001] and items [ F 2(1, 39) = 28.9] analyses and an interaction between TYPE and DISTANCE that was approaching significance in the subjects [ F 1(2, 40) = 3.22, p < 0.051], but not the items [ F 2(2, 78) = 1.85, p = 0.164] analysis.