Excerpts

Frontal Log Power In the frontal area, the condition × frequency interaction was on the borderline of significance, F (2.86, 54.3) = 2.70, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.12.

However, the dysphoric group significantly improved their effectiveness by the second 25 s of the first probe trial, p < 0.001, and the difference between their effectiveness and that of the control group approached the level of significance, p = 0.058.

For the c-RST—percent correct, there was a marginally significant effect of musicianship [ F (1, 201) = 3.65, p = 0.058, partial η 2 = 0.02], and significant main effects of rhythmic complexity [ F (1.89, 379.64) = 205.24, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.51] and age group [ F (5, 201) = 5.24, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.12].

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 ).

However, when quality of contact was entered, intergroup contact became marginally significant ( b = 0.118, p = 0.058).

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 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).

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.

Chi-square test revealed marginal significance, χ 2 = 5.692, df = 2, p = 0.058, Cramer's V = 0.287.

The regression model explained 14.0% of the variance in this criterion variable, which was marginally significant [ F (3, 49) = 2.668, p = 0.058].

The main effect of mindset activated by the shopping cart state was marginally significant [ F (1, 151) = 3.657, p = 0.058].

The high mood group were more likely to entertain thoughts about the TSST relative to the low mood group, however, the trend just failed to reach significance, χ 2 (2) = 5.683, p = 0.058, V = 0.508.

The model also yielded a marginally significant effect of treatment, F (1,42) = 3.79, p = 0.058, and a significant treatment by phase interaction, F (2,234) = 6.21, p = 0.002, so that the OT treatment led to longer gaze times than the placebo treatment, but only in extinction (Sequential Bonferroni, p < 0.0001).

This difference bordered on significance [ F (1, 93) = 3.699, p = 0.058, η 2 = 0.038].

The simple slope for high health goal was not significant but did show a marginally significant trend, t (80) = 1.93, β = 0.85, p = 0.058.

Although there was only a marginally significant interaction between age group and gender, F (1,153) = 3.66, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.02, tests of simple effects indicate that gender differences in donating are significant for 4-year-olds only ( Table 2 ).

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].

It yielded a significant main effect of time point [ F (1,19) = 6.87; p = 0.017] and a marginally significant main effect of synchronicity [ F (1,19) = 4.08; p = 0.058], indicating that the proprioceptive drift toward the RH tended to be larger in the condition with synchronous stroking.

In a similar vein, two-sample t -tests between 6-year-old TD and 8-year-old ASD children showed a marginally significant effect for saccades between the target and the relational location, t (43.74) = 1.95, p = 0.058, but no effects for saccades between the target and the non-relational location, t (44) = 0.82, p = 0.419.

A Sex × Target mixed ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of Target, F (2, 60) = 60.45, p < 0.0001, partial η 2 = 0.67, and a marginally significant main effect of Sex, F (1, 30) = 3.88, p = 0.058, partial η 2 = 0.11.

The interaction between load and scope was close to significance, F (1, 76) = 3.705, p = 0.058.

The correlation between SD and RA was marginally significant ( r = 0.09, p = 0.058). 3.2.

The three-way interaction almost reached significance [ F (1,37) = 3.8, p = 0.058].

Also, the main effect of attentional focus was marginally significant, F (1, 44) = 3.80, p = 0.058.