Excerpts

The Wilcoxon test showed a marginally significant difference in AP before and after AR ( Table 5 ), Z = −1.83, p = 0.068, while there was no difference in SM or SE before and after AR, p > 0.05.

The differences between the control up condition and the unaltered condition were also marginally significant ( p = 0.068).

The results showed that there were no differences among athletes in the cortisol awakening levels, measured the day before competition, in relation to age, sex, and role on board, even though bowmen showed an increasing trend in cortisol reactivity, compared to helmsmen ( p = 0.068), which did not reach significance, probably because of the small sample size ( n = 70) included in the analysis.

Furthermore, a marginally significant difference was found in the by-item analysis [ F 2(1, 35) = 3.55, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.092].

66 ± 14%, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant difference in the single task (86 ± 10 vs. 90 ± 9%, p = 0.068; Figure 2D ).

A similar marginally significant two-way interaction emerged when comparing the control video with the porn baseline , B = 74.60, t (23427) = 1.824, p = 0.068, 95% CI: −5.569, 154.772.

However, we found a marginally significant interaction between gender of participant and experimental condition on aesthetic appreciation, F = 3.35, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.004.

Looking at the Condition * Religiosity interactions, we observed a marginally significant interaction in the USA sample (Religiosity * Secular: p = 0.068; Religiosity * Control: p = 0.052), but this interaction did not replicate in the other sites (ps > 0.3; Table 4 , Models B).

Furthermore, despite the fact that the favorite songs were accompanied by a black screen, they showed a trend for being more engaging than the multimodal music videos ( p = 0.068).

However, the path from reading ability to MT6 was marginally significant (β = 0.09, p = 0.068), and the path from visual–spatial ability to CT6 (β = –0.05, p = 0.680), and MT6 (β = –0.02, p = 0.853) was not significant.

Though the effect in the non-dominant leg was close to significance ( p = 0.068), a difference in the aftereffect across the legs in this iteration of the paradigm would indicate that vision differentially affects the control of the dominant and non-dominant legs, with more impact on the control of the dominant limb.

The trend toward significance for the positive coefficient for daylight (0.017, z = 1.828, p = 0.068) indicates a potential, slight increase in activity with an increase in amount of daylight.

Technophobia also had a marginally significant effect on fatigue, F (1, 73) = 3.440, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.045.

The observed variance of BY trials was also larger in the Temple study, trending toward significance [ F (103,92) = 3.36, p = 0.068].

However, one difference between the groups approached significance: people in the mood-responsive group had marginally higher scores on the IRI Fantasy scale than those in the remaining group [20.7 vs. 17.7; F (1, 31) = 3.60, p = 0.068].

The effect of rPTA-squared on alpha activity during the probe also proved to be significant and although the correlation between the alpha activity during the probe and the response times only approached significance ( p = 0.068), we believe that the changes in alpha power during the probe period arise from changes in the speed of information processing ( Klimesch, 2005 ) and not WM processing as such.

The multivariate main effect of Time was marginally significant [Pillai’s V = 0.064, F (2, 81) = 2.78, p = 0.068, ηp 2 = 0.064], while the Time * Group interaction did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.628).

The near-significant effect of published articles on future published articles (0.103, p = 0.068, 95% CI [−0.035, 0.239]) indicates a potential association.

The role of the decoding accuracy (Model 2) was marginally significant ( p = 0.069), and the explained variance reached 12.7%.

Though we do found the interaction of action × object was close to significance in the RTs ( p = 0.069).

The analyses only showed a trend for burnout (emotional exhaustion), in the direction of physicians being more exhausted [24.5(8.25–28.5) vs. 7(3.5–9.75); p = 0.069].

A marginally significant main effect for gaining condition (i.e., gain, neutral, and loss) was found (see Figure 2 ) F (2,26) = 2.964, MSE = 3.18, p = 0.069.

The main effect of cue type was marginally significant ( F (2,38) = 2.87, p = 0.069, η 2 = 0.13).

Conversely, the effect of Group showed a trend that did not reach significance [ F (2,109) = 2.7, p = 0.069].

In line with our expectations, we found a marginally significant difference when comparing the banner AOI hit likelihoods for static and animated banner advertisements containing a face, χ 2 (1, N = 108) = 3.315, p = 0.069, showing that animated faces were 2.073 times more likely to direct participants’ attention to the advertisement than static faces.