“marginally significant”

A marginally significant difference was observed at 6 months [χ 2 (1) = 3.10, p = 0.08], and no significant difference was observed in the other two age groups [10-month-olds: χ 2 (1) = 0.10, p = 0.80; adults: χ 2 (1) = 2.10, p = 0.20], suggesting that the detection of vowel or consonant change was affected similarly by vocoding in the three groups.

The NISs GPA was found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Time contrasts showed that no treatment-related difference was found from baseline to 3 months (F[1, 104]=2.7, P =0.10), was marginally significant from baseline to 6 months (F[1, 104]=3.2, P =0.08), and was significant from 3 to 6 months (F[1, 104] = 6.43, P =0.01), suggesting no effect of the treatment initially (baseline to 3 months), but a significant effect of the treatment toward the end of the intervention (3-6 months).

Although only about 10% of women reported eating fish caught by someone they knew, we still found a marginally significant association between higher blood mercury levels and eating caught fish (p = 0.08).

8 ) with significant differences for Type I ( t (33)=3.0, p =0.006, d =0.62; bootstrapped confidence interval (0.01, 0.06) and p =0.019), Type II ( t (132)=3.4, p =0.001, d =0.71; bootstrapped confidence interval (0.1, 0.2) and p =0.001) and Type VI ( t (117)=4.1, p <0.001, d =0.85; bootstrapped confidence interval (0.04, 0.1) and p <0.001), and a marginally significant improvement in Type V ( t (61)=1.8, p =0.08, d =0.37; bootstrapped confidence interval (-0.1, 0.005) and p =0.08.

A 3 (chances of winning) x 2 (choice condition) ANOVA ( n = 28) revealed a significant main effect of chances of winning [ F (2, 54) = 4.32, p < .05, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \eta_p^2 = .{14} $$\end{document} ] and a marginally significant effect of choice condition [ F (1, 27) = 3.41, p = .08, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \eta_p^2 = .{11} $$\end{document} ], but no significant Chances of Winning x Choice Condition interaction [ F (2, 54) = 0.63].

This relationship was not statistically significant after one hour ( χ 2 = 2.56, p = .11), but was marginally significant after 24 hr ( χ 2 = 3.16, p = .08) (Figure 6 ). 4.

A marginally significant main effect of target, F (1,48) = 3.13, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.40, showed that participants tended to rate the truthful target as more deceptive ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.55) than the lying target ( M = 3.40, SD = 1.19).

In the post hoc analysis of reaction times, we observed a marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.53, p = .08) effect of tACS phase on reaction times for left hemifield targets, but not right ( R 2 = 0.08, p = .35).

Non-endometrioid EC histological subtype, along with advanced FIGO stage, were identified as independent predictive factors for poor OS ( P =0.01 and P =0.04, respectively, Table 4A ), whereas sHE4 levels (medium vs low tertile) were shown to be marginally significant as prognostic factor for shorter OS ( P =0.08, Table 4A ).

Age was marginally significant (Wald χ2 = 3.070, p = .080).

non-predictive) and Epoch (1–5) on performance correct yielded a marginally significant main effect of Epoch, F (4, 44) = 2.25, p = .08, η p 2 = .17 (with a marginal linear increase in accuracy with Epoch: 91, 93, 93, 93, 95% for Epochs 1 to 5, F (1, 11) = 4.04, p = .07, η p 2 = .27).

On the contrary the difference between BPD-NSSI and CTRL group was marginally significant ( p =.08).

The main effect of tonal function was significant for normalized RTs, F 1 (1, 31) = 6.05, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.05, F 2 (1, 23) = 7.71, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.03, and marginally significant for correct responses, F 1 (1, 31) = 3.28, p = 0.08, MSE = 32.41, F 2 (1, 23) = 3.70, p = 0.07, MSE = 20.02, target word processing was more accurate and faster when presented in synchrony with a tonic chord than with a subdominant chord.

Similarly, nurses with low DC to care had higher job satisfaction (M=3.06) than nurses with high DC (M=2.78), but this difference was marginally significant (t=1.80, 95% CI=-.03-.59, p=.08).

The one exception was the indirect effect for family interference with work, although even this effect was marginally significant and in the predicted direction, p = 0.08.

As shown in Table 3 , Section A, the effect of the actionable dashboard on attitudes was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), failing to support H2a.

However, the evidence for the relationship of roe deer visitations and ambient temperature was marginally significant ( r = −0.14, p = .08).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between time and group, F (1, 87) = 2.19, p = 0.08, n 2 p = 0.09.

The reduction in pain intensity was marginally significant after adjusting for baseline values (P = 0.08) and there was no significant difference between the two groups after adjusting for all covariates (P = 0.11).

There was a significant correlation between posterior DMN connectivity and overall mean cortical flortaucipir SUVr in the DLB group ( r = −0.39, P = 0.04), while this was marginally significant in the Alzheimer’s disease dementia group ( r = −0.35, P = 0.08) and there was no significant correlation in the control group ( r = −0.13, P = 0.20; Fig. 3A ).

In all cases, judgments of others’ fear elicited lower activations after exposure to incongruent joyful movies, relative to congruent fearful movies [ t (32) ≥ 2.02, P ≤ 0.05; marginally significant for the precuneus, t (32) = 1.79, P = 0.08]; whereas conversely, judgments of others’ joy produced lower activity after incongruent fearful movies, relative to congruent joyful or neutral movies [ t (32) ≥ 2.35, P ≤ 0.03].

Furthermore, we observed a marginally significant interaction between product visibility and integration between identities ( b = 0.57, SE = 0.33, z (1) = 1.76, p = .08).

For errors, there was a marginally significant shift effect ( P < 0.08); fewer errors were committed at rest (0.37 ± 1.01 n /session) than at low-stress (1.26 ± 3.30 n /session).

The correlation with the level of regularity of tactile image practice was also positive, but marginally significant ( τ = 0.22, p = 0.08).