Excerpts

Reductions in the correlation between left SFG and right LOC in Patient 2 ( p < 0.05), and right ( p < 0.01) and left (marginally significant: p = 0.07) SMG, and right LOC (marginally significant: p = 0.07) in Patient 3, and were also found.

Furthermore, the intervention predicted participants’ personal norm marginally significant ( B = −0.17; p = 0.07, CI [−0.349; 0.016]), which in turn predicted participants’ willingness to offer expired but still edible food highly significant ( B = 0.05, p < 0.001, CI [0.019; 0.076]).

The association was attenuated at the median quantile ( τ = 0.50: B = 1.22, bootstrap standard error = 0.40, p < 0.01) and only marginally significant at the 75th percentile ( τ = 0.75: B = 0.68, bootstrap standard error = 0.37, p = 0.07).

The 3-way interaction between epoch, emotion and exaggerated was marginally significant, F (36, 2664) = 1.95, p = 0.07.

They also reported less momentary loneliness, though the relation was only marginally significant this time, r (599) = −0.07, p = 0.07.

However, the analysis yielded a significant main effect of Face Orientation, F (1, 70) = 41.02, p < 0.001, η p 2 , CI: 0.19, 0.51, which was qualified by a marginally significant interaction with Construal Level, F (2, 70) = 2.78, p < 0.07, η p 2 = 0.07, CI: 0, 0.19.

The main effect of Task Transition was only marginally significant, F (1,21) = 3.56, p < 0.07.

The main effect of Group was only marginally significant, F (2, 65) = 2.72, p = 0.07, and the interactions between Cue and Group and between Deception and Cue were not significant, both F s < 1.

In the two-way interaction model, the interaction of percent positivity with relationship quality was marginally significant, p = 0.07, as was the interaction of cosine and relationship quality, p = 0.054.

The interaction between trial type and age group was marginally significant, F (1,20) = 3.58, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.15.

The following univariate ANOVAs indicated that following a sad mood induction, participants who received emotionally engaging instructions exhibited a marginally significant greater decline in general mood [ F (1, 26) = 3.70, p = 0.07] and a greater incline in sad rating [ F (1, 26) = 6.24, p < 0.05] than participants who received emotionally disengaging instructions, compared to baseline mood ratings.

The PR-only group showed greater performance at a trend level of significance compared with the TAU group (LM I: mean difference = 7.23, p = 0.070; LM II: mean difference = 6.86, p = 0.098).

The interaction of Performance with Size approached significance [ F (1,87) = 3.37, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.33].

Gaze durations for the same region showed a marginally significant simple effect of Structure for which RCE patterned faster than SRCE in the Plausible conditions ( p = 0.07).

Regarding theta 2 power, the main effects of time [ F (1,58) = 9.89, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15], site [ F (3,174) = 33.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37], and condition [ F (3,174) = 39.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.40] were observed; importantly, a marginally significant interaction effect of time point × site × condition × group [ F (9,522) = 1.75, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.03] was observed.

Raising children had marginal significance on health membership ( p = 0.07).

However, the interaction effect between illusion type and the number of repeated auditory stimuli was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.52, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.12, which means that the one and two repeated stimuli conditions showed no significant difference for both fission and fusion illusions.

For the duration of CE and the self/environment dimension, the effect of stage was only marginally significant ([ F (3) = 2.8, p = 0.07] and [ F (3) = 2.7, p = 0.08] respectively).

447), however, a dominance effect was attested, as the study reported the main effect of dominance approaching significance in 20 simultaneous Cantonese-English bilinguals ( p = 0.07), suggesting that the children made fewer head errors as their Cantonese dominance increased.

The mean pleasantness ratings for the four sounds identified in the more Positively valenced group were 1.35 points higher than the Negatively valenced group, which was a marginally significant difference [independent samples t (3) = 1.991, p < 0.07, one-tailed].

The results of the one-sided two-sample T -tests are presented as following: the control group, the participants who were simply asked for a donation, donated more than the first treatment group who were offered the tote bag as a thank-you gift ( p = 0.048, mean.c = 28.76, Sd-c = 25.65, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74); the difference become insignificant when compared to the second treatment group for whom the statement is given ( p = 0.205, mean.c = 28.76, Sd.c = 25.65, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42); however, the difference between the control groups is only weakly significant ( p = 0.070, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42).

At the same time, in 10 out of 18 caregivers, the family strain showed a trend to decrease (FSQ: from 14.6 ± 7.7 to 11.0 ± 6.0, p = 0.07) improving from “strongly recommended” support to within the “range of attention.” Levels of anxiety and depression were substantially unvaried in all caregivers, except for two who asked for help, and whose anxiety levels decreased.

The second ANOVA, conducted in order to provide a more in-depth investigation into the interaction between the priming effect and emotional valences, did yield a marginally significant Prime Emotion × Target Emotion interaction [ F (2,56, 97.21) = 2.5, p < 0.07, η p^2 = 0.06].

Time and group revealed a marginally significant interaction, F (1,37) = 3.43, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.09.

There was also a trivial main effect of the variable quintile, F (4, 156) = 270.59, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.87 (ε = 0.26), and the variable quintile also interacted significantly with congruence, F (4, 156) = 6.97, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.15 (ε = 0.51), with prime type, F (4, 156) = 5.80, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.13 (ε = 0.45), and in a marginally significant three-way interaction with congruence and prime type, F (4, 156) = 3.02, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.07 (ε = 0.38).