Excerpts

Interaction between the group and the learning mode was marginally significant [ F (2,92) = 2.831, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.058].

Language × hemisphere interactions were not significant for the scientific metaphoric pairs ( p = 0.14), but marginally significant for the literal pairs [ F (2, 32) = 3.33, p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.17].

Our results revealed that the L1 group showed a positive correlation between their task performance and connectivity strengths ( r =0.52, p =0.006), whereas the L2 group showed a similar trend but with a marginal significance ( r =0.38, p =0.064).

1752) but marginally significant costs (“ p = 0.065”, p. 1752) were reported.

The coefficient associated with the performance-approach goal × personal sense of power interaction term became marginally significant ( b = 0.15, SE b = 0.08, β = 0.16, p = 0.065).

Collapsed across conditions, same-key priming was significant, t (22) = 3.15, p < 0.01, d = 0.71, whereas different-key priming approached significance, t (21) = 1.56, p = 0.065, d = 0.38.

Melodic musicians did not differ in accuracy with any other group, although within 120–139 BPM, the difference in accuracy between musicians and controls was near significance (120–139 BPM musicians vs. controls, p =0.065; other comparisons p ≥0.255).

For the Possible split model, the effect of age only tended toward significance (χ2 = 3.4, df = 1, p = 0.065).

Effects of Task Framing WM Performance ANCOVA yielded a marginally significant interaction effect of Framing Type × Time [ F (2, 93) = 2.81, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.06] on WM performance.

Sex was marginally significant in its association with exam performance, F (1, 334) = 3.55, p = 0.065, β = −0.10, 95% CI = [−0.44, 0.01], indicating that females tended to score higher on the exam than males.

Even more importantly, for addition, the difference in accuracy between c−2 and c + 2 trials also approached significance ( p = 0.065; Bonferroni corrected).

Nevertheless, the condition × group interaction on RTs was marginally significant ( p = 0.065), since older adults presented slower RTs in incongruent trials (mean RT = 929 ms, SD = 202) compared to congruent trials (mean RT = 919 ms, SD = 200), t (24) = -2.22, p < 0.05.

As seen from Table 1 , the psychological capital of teachers in ethnic areas was slightly higher than that of teachers in non-ethnic areas, and the test results reached borderline significance ( p = 0.065).

However, caution should be taken when interpreting the effect of sex on overall EF scores because this effect had borderline significance ( p = 0.065), and the effect sizes were relatively small ( d = 0.13).

The interaction effect of stimuli type and gaze direction was marginally significant, F (2, 58) = 2.861, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.090, BF incl = 2.465.

As expected, happiness showed significantly negative correlations with sadness ( r = –0.256, p = 0.010), fear ( r = –0.271, p = 0.006), and disgust ( r = –0.274, p = 0.006) but a marginally significant negative correlation with anger ( r = –0.184, p = 0.065).

The analysis of percentage errors showed a marginally significant main effect of spatial correspondence F (1,46) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.07 that interacted significantly with instruction F (1,46) = 4.40, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0.09.

Furthermore, there is a marginally significant correlation between MUs punishers used in round 1 and MUs allocators shared in round 2, r = 0.32, p = 0.065.

The cognitive load main effect was only marginally significant, F (3,66) = 2.52, p = 0.065, η 2 p = 0.10, but pairwise comparisons failed to reveal any significant difference (all p s ≥ 0.115).

Initial Pearson correlation patterned in the expected direction, where greater time since divorce was associated with lower intensity of divorce-related recollections, although this association did not quite reach significance ( r = −0.33, p = 0.065).

At −150 ms SOA, there was a significant effect of part-relation by participants, F 1(1, 26) = 8.46, p = 0.007 partial η 2 = 0.25, but was only marginally significant by items F 2(1, 23) = 3.77, p = 0.065, partial η 2 = 0.14.

However, only a marginally non-significant difference was detected between these two groups [ t 19.99 = 1.949, p = 0.065; mean of the “no control” group = 70%, s.e.m. = 6%; mean of the “control” group = 57%, s.e.m. = 3%, Cohen's d = 0.642].

Classification skills showed a strong trend toward significance ( p = 0.065), suggesting a potential moderating role of attitude that warrants further investigation.

The first row of the middle section of Table 3 showed that the statistics for %SS were similar to those in the top section of Table 3 except that phase contrast 2 was not quite significant (p = 0.065) and there was an additional effect of age.

The comparison between IN and HU words also showed significant differences between these two sets of words in RTs [ t 1 (28) = 2.95, p = 0.006; t 2 (76) = 1.27, p = 0.207] that were only marginally significant in the error rates analysis [ t 1 (28) = 1.92, p = 0.065; t 2 (76) = 1.90, p = 0.061].