Excerpts

As a result, the multivariate test revealed no significant effects of the covariates age and gender, both F < 1, but a marginally significant effect of the covariate IQ, F (4,34) = 2.54, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.23.

Investigating the three demographic variables showed that grade and sex were significant [grade: F (6, 326) = 8.35, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.13; sex: F (3, 162) = 16.12, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.23], and LPE approached significance [ F (3, 162) = 2.54, p = 0.058, partial eta squared = 0.05].

The interaction of “time” × “group,” however, was not significant and showed only a trend toward significance [ F (1,28) = 3.92, p = 0.058].

Follow-up two-tailed t -tests (α = 0.025) revealed a marginally significant effect of PERTURBATION for sentences, t (1,13) = 2.077 , p = 0.058, Cohen’s d = 0.555, and no effect of PERTURBATION for lists, t (1,13) = 0.668 , p = 0.516, Cohen’s d = 0.169.

These main effects were modified by a significant interaction of Condition × Age, F (9, 1014) = 8.31, p < 0.000, a near-significant effect of Condition × Home Language, F (9, 1014) = 1.84, p = 0.058, and a significant interaction of Condition × Age × Home Language, F (27, 1014) = 1.55, p = 0.036.

Independent t -tests showed a significant difference in BMP between groups at 4 m of distance [ t (57) = -2.051, p = 0.045], a nearly significant difference at 2 m of distance [ t (57) = -1.934, p = 0.058], and no significant difference at 16 m [ t (57) = 0.276, p = 0.783].

Planned paired t -tests between targets surrounded by fearful flanker faces compared to all other flankers (average) were significant for emotion recognition accuracy ( t (28) = 2.18, p = 0.038) and revealed a statistical trend for reaction time ( t (28) = 1.98, p = 0.058) ( Figure 5 ).

Meanwhile, there was a marginally significant difference between the participants’ risk-seeking index in the L-SRP/class comparison and the L-SRP/school comparison, t (66) = 1.930, p = 0.058.

However, note this association was only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.058).

The gender × age interaction emerged as a predictor; young women and men had similar scores that slightly decreased until the breakpoint age, and then, a decrease—although marginally significant—was observed (age after the breakpoint std. beta = −0.14; p = 0.058), maintaining gender differences (see Figure 1C ; Supplementary Table S4 ).

Results of simple effect analysis showed the effect of self-regulation was not significant on strength-type heroes, marginally significant on agility-type heroes [ F (1, 112) = 3.679, p = 0.058, η2 p = 0.032], and significant on intelligence-type heroes [ F (1, 112) = 8.167, p = 0.005, η2 p = 0.068].

A likelihood ratio test comparing this unconstrained model (M3 in Table 7 ) to the most constrained model (M1) was marginally significant ( Δ χ ( Δ d f = 2 ) 2 = 5.68, p = 0.058), ΔRMSEA = 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.01.

The expected negative correlation between the MIS-D refocusing subscale and the dysfunctional aspect of perfectionism was only marginally significant ( r = −0.132, p = 0.058; hypothesis 5d).

The results showed a trend whereby the infants that looked more to target words at utterance-edge position than to unfamiliar words [ r (32) = 0.33, p = 0.058] and that looked more at target words at utterance-medial position than to unfamiliar words [ r (32) = 0.33, p = 0.052] have larger later expressive vocabulary outcomes measured with the CDI percentile.

The core member’s cognitive versatility also moderates the negative effect of a disconnected role set on average ALOS, an effect that is significant based on standard thresholds when excluding the physician characteristics that we treat as control variables (Model 8; B = −0.06, p = 0.041), but did not quite reach significance when including those controls ( Table 2 , Model 6; B = −0.05, p = 0.058).

The main effect of emotion conditions was marginally significant [ F (1.407, 21.100) = 3.616, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.194], but the main effect of time points and the interaction were all not significant.

However, workplace vigor, defined as “high levels of energy and resilience, the willingness to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of difficulties,” approached significance at p = 0.058 ( Schaufeli et al., 2006 ).

The interaction term between Wave 2 sleep duration and Wave 2 cognitive function showed a marginally significant positive prediction for Wave 3 mental health ( β = −0.058, t = −1.897, p = 0.058).

The results showed that the effects of NS were marginally significant on positive affective variation ( F = 3.88, p = 0.058), and the main effects of CL on positive affective variation were not significant ( F = 0.18, p = 0.677), but the interaction effects of CL and navigational structure on positive affective variation were significant ( F = 13.66, p < 0.001), which indicated that only when the two independent variables worked together will they significantly influence affective experience.

With outliers included in the model it is only marginally significant ( p = 0.058; in all others cases * p <0.05). seq_cross and HSTC, word group based metrics, are the best performing models according to their BIC/AIC, with HSTC coming out on top.

The regression model was marginally significant, R 2 = 0.35, F (7, 36) = 2.25, p = 0.058; Table 5 shows the results.

In the areas responsible for the word identification system (i.e., left triangular part of the IFG and left insula), only marginally significant effects were observed in the response to the types of words [left IFG: F (2,44) = 3.04, p = 0.058; left insula: F (2,44) = 3.17, p = 0.052].

However, a marginally significant difference in RTs between the two groups for disengaging by conflict [ F (1,56) = 3.734, p = 0.058, ω 2 = 0.044], suggesting that the effects tend to be lower for AVGPs (15.52 ± 51.68) than for NAVGPs (47.49 ± 57.09) 2 , although the effect size was relatively small.

This association was marginally significant in Model_3b ( β = −0.13, p = 0.058).

However, we observed an increasing trend of average fixation rate from C2 to C3 ( Z = 1.88, p = 0.058).