Excerpts

In addition, we found a marginally significant interaction between price levels and payment methods (β = 0.087, p = 0.06, 95% BCI [−0.003 0.177]) such that in comparison to paying in cash, mobile payment effectively enhanced purchase intention for high-price headphones (M high_price_mobile = 53.59% vs.

A marginally significant interaction of the newly introduced factor Window (80 vs. 120 ms) with Stimulus type [ F (1,15) = 4.03, p = 0.06] suggested an earlier peak for the word than pseudo-word stimuli (also visible in the ERP patterns).

Luminance standard deviation showed a trend toward significance ( F (2,123) = 2.96, p = 0.06) but did not exceed the conventional threshold.

Post hoc paired-sample t -tests reported significant difference between Static and Moving conditions at the presentation duration of 1200 ms [ t (11) = −4.586, p = 0.002], though it failed to reach significance under 800 ms [ t (11) = 0.561, p > 0.999], and with marginally significant difference under 1000 ms [ t (11) = −2.717, p = 0.060] presentation duration (all Bonferroni-corrected).

Additionally, mobility showed a trend with poorer performance in Science, such that mobile students scored on average 10.2 points lower ( SE = 5.42, p = 0.06) and were likely to reach proficiency in Science only 89% as often ( OR = 0.89, CI = [0.80–1.01], p = 0.07) as stable students.

In addition, the interaction between priming type and experiments reached significance, F (1,96) = 5.72, MSE = 20401, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.06, and the three-way interaction was marginally significant, F (3,96) = 2.53, MSE = 9013, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.07, whereas other interactions were missing [Experiment ∗ SOAs: F < 1, ns; Congruency ∗ SOAs: F (3,96) = 1.41, MSE = 12277, p > 0.10].

Spatial ROIs We found a marginally significant interaction in a cluster in right PSPL/Pr, (peak coordinate: x = 20, y = -66, z = 54, BA = 7, z = 2.52, p = 0.06, k = 83 voxels; Figure 4A ) 7 .

Follow-up tests for each level of Order, separately, indicated that there was no Task effect associated with Order 1 [ F (4, 10.88) = 1.86, p = 0.19] nor for Order 2 [ F (4, 10.27) = 2.36, p = 0.12], but there was a nearly significant Task effect for Order 3 [ F (4, 14.39) = 2.87, p = 0.06].

WS participants also considered avoiding trustworthy faces more than control participants, though the difference in MD was of borderline significance (0.45 vs. 0.29, p = 0.06).

At the uncorrected level, the detectability difference was also significant in the time window between saccade cue and saccade onset ( p = 0.027), and marginally significant during saccade ( p = 0.060).

Univariate multiple linear regressions indicated that the interaction predicted P200 to positive stimuli over the right hemisphere ( B = –0.54, Δ R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.05), and predicted P200 to each condition (including neutral) over the left hemisphere, though the positive condition was only marginally significant (positive: B = –0.50, Δ R 2 = 0.04, p = 0.06; neutral: B = –0.56, Δ R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.03; negative: B = –0.74, Δ R 2 = 0.07, p = 0.01).

This yielded a reduction from 12.7% surface errors before the workshop ( SD 6.5%) to 9.5% ( SD 5.2%) after it, which approached significance, t (6) = 2.26, p = 0.06.

There was a marginally significant main effect of Interview condition, F (1, 86) = 3.64, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.04, indicating that the suspects in the SUE combined ( M = 1.91, SD = 0.29) overestimated the interviewer's knowledge about the critical phase to a higher extent, compared to the suspects in the Early disclosure condition ( M = 0.96, SD = 0.41).

For response times, a marginally significant main effect of online review [ M positive = 1078.787 ms, SE = 62.632; M negative = 999.723 ms, SE = 53.379; F (1, 22) = 3.948, p = 0.060, η 2 = 0.152] and a significant main effect of brand familiarity were identified [ M familiar = 1065.109 ms, SE = 59.244; M unfamiliar = 1013.401 ms, SE = 52.142; F (1,22) = 5.385, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.197].

The planned comparison of confidence ratings for correct versus incorrect responses in the non-social task only approached significance [ t (9) = 2.11, p = 0.06] probably due to the reduced statistical power under this condition.

Planned comparisons indicated a significant difference between the 800 and 1100 ms intervals, F (1, 30) = 33.67, p < 0.001, whereas the difference between 1100 and 1400 ms intervals was marginally significant, F (1, 30) = 3.61, p = 0.06.

RESULTS Error rates Speakers made more errors in reproducing sentences with weak bias verbs ( M = 0.36, SD = 0.48) than strong bias verbs ( M = 0.31, SD = 0.46), but the difference was only marginally significant (β = -0.25, SE = 0.13, z = -1.90, p = 0.06).

Scores on the SCPBI-Y (pain burden) approached significance ( p = 0.06).

The main effect of motion speed was marginally significant ( F 1,44 = 2.99, p = 0.06).

Finally, planned comparisons between grasping and pointing conditions for size and luminance tasks separately (target present trials) revealed that the difference between those two conditions was significant in the luminance task, t (13) = 2.1, p < 0.05 (one-tailed) and marginally significant in the size task, t (13) = 2.1, p = 0.06 (one-tailed).

There was a trend toward significance for larger changes in the follow instructions task, (β = 0.10, p = 0.06), but not for arithmetic, (β = -0.02, p = 0.827).

However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).

Results indicated significant differences for allocation to spouse, F (2, 417) = 9.30, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.04, but only marginally significant for allocation to parent, F (2, 417) = 2.80, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 01. and child [ F (2, 417) = 2.80, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.01].

A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].

In the upper alpha band, there were no significant effects of Training or Task, apart from a marginally significant interaction between Task and Hemisphere [ F (1,19) = 4.07, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.18], which revealed a larger hemispheric ERD difference (in favor of the right hemisphere) in the figural-spatial compared to the multiplication problems.