Excerpts

Compared to the no-contrast condition, the increase triggered by the object contrast was only marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.6, df = 1, n = 76, p = 0.059), whereas the decrease triggered by the liquid contrast was significant (χ 2 = 37.2, df = 1, n = 73, p < 0.001).

Some selective attention measures, such as the TMT-A, reached marginally statistically significant group*time interactions: ( F (1, 24) = 3.926, p = 0.059, partial η 2 = 0.141) and executive function measures, such as the Stroop Colors and Words ( F (1, 24) = 4.243, p = 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.150), but there was still a large effect size ( Cohen, 1977 ).

Interestingly, we also observe marginally significant associations between pathogen disgust sensitivity and those with whom the respondents have closer ties—that is, people they know personally ( b = −0.06, p = 0.059 (M3))—and even friends ( b = −0.06, p = 0.063 (M2)).

sAA was increased after the AAT sessions, but the difference was not quite significant (Wilcoxon Test; p = 0.059.

Marginal significance was found for the correlation between the change scores of the picture-updating task and the changed RP amplitude of stimulus-based action ( rs = 0.482, p = 0.059), showing that improved performance of executive function after training was positively related with the increased RP amplitude in stimulus-based action.

Nonetheless, the Mann–Whitney test revealed a marginally significant effect of age group ( Z = -1.89, p = 0.059), which showed that a decreased tendency of selecting egocentric representation among adult participants.

Further, the interaction between sex and mental imagery only approached significance [ F (1,393) = 3.48, p = 0.059, η 2 = 0.01] and will not be explored further due to the relatively small percentage ( n = 31) of students who did not engage in mental imagery.

As predicted, groups differed on all three sub-scales after watching the video, [inclined-indulgent F (2, 89) = 9.13, p < 0.001; resolved-regulated F (2, 89) = 17.57, p < 0.01], although this fell short of significance for the obsessed-compelled sub-scale [ F (2, 89) = 2.93, p = 0.059].

The results indicated significant main effects of the group [ F (2, 25) = 14.058, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.529, large effect size] and the discrimination location [ F (1, 25) = 47.783, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.551, large effect size], while the duration effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 25) = 3.904, p = 0.059].

There was also a marginally significant effect on empathy [ t (14) = 1.89, p = 0.059, ES = 0.145], but object-related absorption did not reach a significant level [ t (14) = 0.84, p = 0.403, ES = 0.061].

Participation in other sports showed a borderline significant negative association ( b = −1.5, 95% CI: −3.1 to 0.1, p = 0.059).

Additionally, the interaction effect of group and tempo approached significance, F (2,37) = 2.94, p = 0.059, η 2 = 0.07; the interaction effect of tempo and emotion dimension was significant, F (1,37) = 29.38, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.43.

Only monofractal structure showed a trend toward a significant mediation effect for the listening and reading comprehension relation (indirect effect Z = 1.89, p = 0.059, direct effect Z = 5.45, p < 0.01, R 2 = 0.311).

The accuracy rates associated with COs were positively correlated with the bilinguals’ proficiency, though the result showed a tendency toward statistical significance ( p = 0.059).

The difference between the DLD and HFA-LI groups was marginally significant in Structure B (adjusted p = 0.059), but not significant in Structure C (adjusted p = 1.000).

Planned comparisons that assessed the effects of congruity at each SOA separately showed significant interference effects at SOA = −150 ms, t (2187) = 2.55, p = 0.011 and at SOA = −300 ms, t (2189) = 2.27, p = 0.023, and a marginally significant interference effect at SOA = 0 ms, t (2183) = 1.89, p = 0.059.

To examine what WM task was more problematic for patients, we compared the performance of patients and controls in each WM task separately: patients clearly performed worse than controls on LNS (patients' Mdn = 9, controls' Mdn = 13, W = 105.5, p = 0.003); patients also showed poorer performance than controls in Arithmetic , being this between-group difference marginally significant (patients' Mdn = 8, controls' Mdn = 12, W = 89.5, p = 0.059); and there were no significant between-group differences in Dspan (patients' Mdn = 10, controls' Mdn = 12, W = 84.5, p = 0.118).

The majority of participants (8/10) in the SC group showed a decline in total ACE-III score, eliciting a marginally significant median decrease, z = −1.89, p = 0.059.

Importantly, the test for the step function, once the other predictor is taken into account, still approached significance, despite the loss of one degree of freedom [ t (93) = 1.91, p = 0.0595], while that for the gradual increase predictor, after taking the other predictor into account, indicated a total absence of effect [ t (93) = 0.002, p =0.9985].

Likewise, in Experiment 2 we also tested for an association between meta d' for “yes” responses on the memory task and (overall) meta d' for the visual task and found a strong trend toward statistical significance ( r = 0.1890, p = 0.0596).

The main effect of age was marginally significant, with children aged 5–6 sharing more than those aged 3–4, F (1,146) = 3.68, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.05.

Similarly, the analysis for the P600 time window revealed a statistical trend toward a main effect of Structure [ F (1, 18) = 3.98, p = 0.06], a significant main effect of Emphasis [with Emphasis on NP1 more positive than on NP2; F (1, 18) = 4.7, p < 0.05], but no interaction between Structure and Emphasis [ F (1, 18) = 1.81, p = 0.19].

The independent-samples t -tests showed a difference in inhibition time between the two groups, approaching significance at T1, t (36) = −1.91, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.62.

Results showed that reading comprehension was significantly correlated with the difference score for unmarked word problems ( r = 0.19, p = 0.04) and had a marginally significant correlation with the difference score for marked word problems ( r = 0.17, p = 0.06).

When we re-examined the time window 350–450 ms for the 23 subjects in the test phase, with Group as between-subjects variable, we observed, besides the significant interaction of Familiarity × Quadrant ( F 3,63 = 5.53, p = 0.003), two interactions with the factor Group: a significant Familiarity × Group ( F 1,21 = 24.3, p < 0.001), and a near-significant three-way Familiarity × Quadrant × Group ( F 3,63 = 2.67, p = 0.06).