Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

not fully significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Interestingly, Mann–Whitney post-hoc analysis showed a significant increase of the trust scores assigned to the untrustworthy faces in the SM condition (Mdn = 30%, 95%CI [27.5, 30]) compared to the NM condition (Mdn = 20%, 95%CI [15, 25]) ( U = 429, p < 0.001, r = 0.41) and, albeit not fully significant, to the TM one (Mdn = 20%, 95%CI [20, 30]) ( U = 636, p = 0.057, r = 0.21) – indicating that untrustworthy faces are rated as “less untrustworthy” when wearing TM and, even less, when wearing SM.
a strong trendp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Since seven of our OS participants left our study before taking this (grapheme-personification) synaesthesia test, we repeated our analysis with the conservative assumption that all were non-synaesthetes and this still resulted in a strong trend for a higher prevalence of confirmed grapheme-personification synaesthesia for gender associations in the OS group compared to controls, χ 2 (1) = 3.618, p = 0.057, 95% CI [−0.004, 0.30].
almost significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Biological significance of iris flecking A general linear model showed a significant sexual difference in total iris flecking (Table 1 ), with males having a smaller amount of iris flecking than females (difference: 1.27, p = 0.02) and an almost significant relationship between total iris flecking and wing length (slope: −0.07, p = 0.057).
showed a trendp = 0.0571.1× alpha
GABA-currents recorded in KO UNT-oocytes showed a trend towards a decrease with respect to WT UNT-injected oocytes ( Fig. 6f , WT UNT, 100 ± 3.51%, n = 90; KO UNT, 87.21 ± 5.93%, n = 77, p = 0.057), while EC 50 and n H ( Fig. 6g ) remained similar (WT UNT, EC 50 = 93.74 ± 5.21 μM, n H = 1.16 ± 0.05, n = 13; KO UNT, EC 50 = 97.8 ± 4.30 μM, n H = 1.24 ± 0.06, n = 18).
approached significancep = 0.0571.1× alpha
Regarding the response time of shadowed words, the main effect of Auditory quality was significant (F 1,16 = 7.8, p = 0.013, ηp 2 = 0.33), the main effect of Visual quality approached significance (F 1, 16 = 4.2, p = 0.057, ηp 2 = 0.21), but the interaction of these two factor was not significant (F 1,16 = 2.2, p = 0.15).