Excerpts

The ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Condition, [ F (2, 112) = 5.951, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.10] a marginally significant main effect of Gaze Trial, [ F (3, 168) = 2.35, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.04].

For high-frequency words, there was a marginal significance NS effect ( p = 0.07), while for low-frequency words, large neighborhood words had a significantly high accuracy rate than small neighborhood words ( p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1A .

Pairwise comparisons showed that the EG showed significant results between the Baseline and the Acquisition-SQIC condition ( p < 0.0001) and close to significance between the Baseline and the Transfer condition ( p = 0.07). 4.4.

Similarly, the difference between the score of DMT students group and the score of art studies students group approached significance ( p = 0.07).

Animals exhibited a statistical trend consistent with a gradual decline of exploratory activity during the first three training days ( F = 3.31, P = 0.07, one-way repeated measures ANOVA), and a comparison in total exploration time between the first and third training sessions reached statistical significance ( P < 0.05, t = 2.81, df = 6, paired samples t -test).

For the 1 s delay condition, a marginally significant difference was evident between the high sleep quality group and the low sleep quality group ( p = 0.07).

Also, the main effect of direction-congruency on the preceding trial approached significance, F (1, 14) = 3.8; p = 0.07; MSE = 0.00024.

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.

Pairwise comparisons of groups revealed a significant difference between high frequency on both books and magazines compared to low level on books but high on magazines ( p = 0.01) and almost significant toward low frequency on both books and magazines ( p = 0.07).

The comparison of (O1 + O2 + O3 + EQ) for Experiment 3 does not reach statistical significance, although a trend towards significance is apparent ( P = 0.07, t = 2.05, df = 8) that was not seen for the O1 + O2 + O3 parameter ( P > 0.1, t = 1.41, df = 8).

Similarly, there was a significant group difference in number of errors [ F (1, 113) = 11.86, p = 0.0008; Figure 5A ], though the Group × Level interaction here was not quite significant [ F (2, 228) = 2.69, p = 0.07].

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].

The ANCOVA showed a tendency toward significance for antecedents of burnout at posttest2 [ F (1,101) = 3.22, p = 0.07; ω 2 = 0.02, I.C. 95% (0.00, 0.09)], and statistically significant effects for antecedents of burnout at follow-up [ F (1,101) = 4.17, p = 0.04; ω 2 = 0.03, I.C. 95% (0.00, 0.10)]. 4.

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).

It should be noted that some intertask correlations were trending toward significance at an unadjusted alpha level (0.05) but the relationship differed in each group: orientation and motion were modestly correlated in SZ ( r = 0.39, p = 0.07), size and motion in BD ( r = 0.5, p = 0.06), luminance and motion in CO ( r = 0.4, p = 0.07).

Response latencies in Range 3 were faster than in Range 4, although this effect was marginally significant [ F (1,7) = 4.72, MSE = 0.02,4, p < 0.07].

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 interactions between experiments and measure types were significant when comparing Experiment 1 with Experiment 2 ( B = −0.60, SE = 0.33, p = 0.07, R 2 = 0.10; marginally significant), and comparing Experiment 2 with Experiment 3 ( B = 0.69, SE = 0.33, p = 0.04, R 2 = 0.10).

However, there was a suggestive trend ( p < 0.07, two-tailed) for the control house ( M = 3.57, SD = 3.10) to contain more mirrors than the target house ( M = 1.00, SD = 1.41).

The analyses (see Supplementary Tables 3a, b ) revealed that the contribution of RAN did not significantly predict Word Reading fluency ( t = 1.56, p = 0.12, R p 2 = 0.03), and its effect on Syllable Reading fluency was only marginally significant ( t = 1.83, p = 0.07, R p 2 = 0.03).

The results indicate a marginally significant effect of happiness when bargaining power is low, OR = 2.06, p = 0.07, 95% CI (0.94, 4.49), such that happy participants are 2.06 times more likely to make a request (probability of requesting increases to 40.61% when happiness increases by one unit).

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

Also, a moderate, marginally significant correlation was found in the Down condition (Pearson’s r = 0.55, p = 0.07, Figure 4B ).

Total reading time analyses for the ADJ region yielded the same pattern but the effect was only marginally significant ( t = -1.85, p = 0.07).

There was a marginally significant effect of the prevention focus on the level of goal [ F (1,111) = 3.5 , p = 0.07] such that high-prevention respondents were setting directionally lower goal levels compared to the low-prevention respondents.