Excerpts

The interaction between Effector and Opposition Axis almost reached significance [ F (2, 30) = 3.0, p = 0.065], potentially suggesting that OA may have a slightly different impact on tool and free-hand imagery.

We checked whether this could be explained by manipulation size (β = − 0 .305 ± 0.074, t = −4.122, p < 0.001), with both effects disappearing when including the marginally significant framework × manipulation size interaction in the model ( 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.

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

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 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.

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

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).

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).

The group effect on reaction time showed a numerical trend, F (2, 42) = 2.913, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.122, which indicated that the comorbidity group produced longer reaction time than did the other two groups ( p s < 0.05).

Additionally, the alternative results using DoG2 showed a trend for a negative relationship between DoG2 and age ( r τ = −0.143, p = 0.065).

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).

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).

For participants in the 3-to-4-year-old group ( Figure 4B ), two significant time-windows were found: the first one coinciding with the first onset of the target word during the test (from 2000 ms until 4320 ms; p < 0.0001) and the second one coinciding with the second repetition of the target word during the test (from 7580 ms until 10000 ms, the end of the trial; p < 0.0001); a third time-window (from 0 to 1040 ms) was marginally significant ( p = 0.065).

The planned comparison was however only marginally significant (estimate = 24, SD = 13, t = 1.851, p = 0.065).

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.

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

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).

For true sentences, we found a marginally significant effect of Modality switch [ F (1, 10) = 4.28, MSE = 20.72, p = 0.065] in the frontal electrodes, where mismatch showed a greater positivity than match (0.929 vs. 0.126 μV, difference 0.803).

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.

Whereas the correlation based on all trials showed a trend toward significance, r (36) = 0.25, p = 0.065, the correlation of adaptive age with accuracy on beach and square trials reached significance, r (36) = 0.35, p = 0.016 (see Figure 5A ).

The marginally significant contrast effect between 3-year-olds and 6-year-olds ( B = −0.943, SE = 0.422, z = −2.235, p = 0.0654) indicate that 6-year-olds produced marginally more BA responses than their 3-year-old counterparts while the remaining contrasts among 3- and 4-year-olds, and 4- and 6-year-olds were not significant.

Critically, when both components were entered simultaneously in the full sample, the unique prospective effect of psychological investment on body dissatisfaction reached marginal significance from T2 to T3 ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), whereas behavioral engagement showed no significant unique effect at either interval (T1 → T2: β = −0.05, p = 0.30; T2 → T3: β = −0.06, p = 0.15).

Backward masking reduced target visibility [ F (1,14) = 92.73], and close proximity was marginally significant in reducing target visibility [ F (1,14) = 3.96, p = 0.066].

The Part factor was not significant for d-prime, F (3, 33) = 1.39, p = 0.26, and marginally significant for RT, F (3, 33) = 2.63, p = 0.066, indicating a trend toward acceleration of the responses.