“marginally significant”

Relationship of executive function and volumetric brain structure measures at school-age Canonical correlation between the 3 EF measures (ROCF, Incidental Accuracy/Copy and Immediate Recall conditions, and Structural Accuracy/Copy condition) and the 6 Regional Volumetric Brain Measures (cerebellum inclusive of vermis, brainstem, right caudate, occipital white matter, left nucleus accumbens and left insula) were marginally significant (χ 2 = 30.40, df = 21, p = 0.08), indicating a marginal association between EF and brain volumetric measures at school-age.

By performing a 2 way-ANOVA on expression of BHLH059 , PIF4 and PR1 , SA contents and Pst DC3000 bacterial counts at 0 and 4 dpi in response to genotype and temperature in this set of mutant lines, we found that temperature significantly affects all our variables except bHLH059 expression where it is marginally significant (p-value = 0.08) and bacterial counts at 0 dpi, in line with results shown in S5 Fig .

57%, P < 0.001), and a marginally significant separation was observed in year 4 (48 vs. 54%, P = 0.08).

A marginally significant Visit * Hemisphere interaction [ F (3, 89) = 2.34, p = 0.08] was also observed, with simple-effect analyses revealing a later latency in L-FFG than R-FFG at Visit 2 [ t (19) = –2.27, p = 0.02] (see Figure 4 for least-square means plot for averaged L-FFG and R-FFG latency at each visit).

While the main effect of in-state tuition for undocumented students does not significantly predict college enrollment in either model, its interaction is marginally significant (p = .08), potentially suggesting that state tuition policies have a stronger relationship with college enrollment for undocumented than for documented youth.

Where there was a marginally significant ( p = 0.08) decrease in the proportion of corrective‐saccades from block 2 (estimated marginal mean −0.07, SE 0.04) to block 3 (estimated marginal mean −0.13, SE 0.04) and between block 2 and block 4 (estimated marginal mean −0.20, SE 0.06; p = 0.06).

warm) between-subjects ANOVA on purchase intention reveals a nonsignificant main effect of name type (F(1, 316) = 1.93, p = .17, η 2 = .01), a marginally significant main effect on brand type (F(1, 316) = 3.08, p = .08, η 2 = .01), and a significant interaction (F(1, 316) = 8.14, p = .005, η 2 = .03).

The hip height difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

all post-VHFS blocks was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), indicating a trend toward overall increase in alpha ERD following VHFS.

The mean number of barriers reported was significantly ( P < 0.05) higher for women compared to men in the 60–69 year age groups and marginally significant in the 70–79 and 80 years and over groups ( P = 0.08).

In a reduced model where only promotion success, rs4680 genotype, and the interaction were entered, the overall model fit was marginally significant: F (3, 55) = 2.39, p < .08, R 2 = 0.12.

The main pre-post effects of the 1000 ms time bisection task were marginally significant (pre-post: F 1,70 =3.12, p =.08, η 2 = 0.02), while the adapted duration was not ( F 2,70 =0.46, p =.63, η 2 = 0.01).

Paired t -tests revealed that participants in the intervention condition demonstrated significant pre–post-intervention increases in the integral values of the front PFC ( t (46) = 2.21, P = 0.03, Cohen’s d = 0.37) and right PFC ( t (49) = 2.10, P = 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.32) and marginally significant increases in the left PFC ( t (50) = 1.76, P = 0.08, Cohen’s d = 0.26).

There was also a marginally significant Avoidance × Anxiety effect, p = .08.

Although two genes only showed marginally significant increases in their transcript levels (p=0.08, likely due to their large variation in expression among replicates), all 12 genes showed consistent FAC-induced up-regulation ( Figure 1—figure supplement 2 ), suggesting an overall high reliability of the RNA-seq results.

The direct actor effect of Partner A’s general stress communication on his/her own interaction quality was marginally significant, b = 0.84, SE = 0.48, p = 0.08, and further, the partner-partner indirect effect was statistically significant, b = -0.93, SE = 0.31, p = 0.002.

There was a marginally significant effect of harvest date and treatment on root length, with the longest roots after the first harvest with severe drought ( Harvest: F1 = 3.17, p = 0.08; Treatment: F8 = 1.85, p < 0.07).

This trend was marginally significant (ANOVA p = 0.08) in the 0–2 cm depth interval (Figure 1 ; n = 6 N-fertilized vs. n = 6 unfertilized samples, However, gene copy number normalized per gdw was not significantly different among treatments in the 0–2 cm depth interval (data not shown).

For raw RT and error rates the main effect of articulatory suppression was marginally significant in the RT analysis [F(1, 11) = 3.82, p = .08, η p 2 = .26] and reliable in the error analysis [F(1, 11) = 11.86, p < .01, η p 2 = .52]: responses became less accurate (8.4% vs. 5.4%) but tended to be faster (2504 ms vs. 2598 ms), while participants performed in the concurrent articulation condition.

For RT scores, there was a significant main effect of rumination on NA ( β = .25, SE = .04, p <.01), and the interaction between rumination and the RT scores of the emotional n -back was marginally significant ( β = −.07, SE = .04, p = .08).

After adjustment for baseline scores, this difference in recovery between the conditions, as indicated by the interaction between scene type (green, built) and block (3, 5) on RSA, was marginally significant, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.1.

There was a marginally significant interaction between Target Category and Saccade Accuracy (F 1,23 = 3.33, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.126), suggesting that the difference in latencies according to the target stimulus was more pronounced for correct (25 ms difference with 187 ± 17 ms for Face target and 212 ± 26 ms for Vehicle target) than error saccades (14 ms difference with 175 ± 30 ms for Face target and 189 ± 21 ms for Vehicle target).

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Feedback salience ( p = 0.08), and a marginally significant interaction between Age group and Feedback salience ( p = 0.09).

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

The impact of SO ambivalence on the time spent on explicit questions relating to sexuality: Straight participants A regression analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the amount of SO ambivalence on time spent deliberating on the explicit items, β = .29, t (66) = 1.78, p = .08.