Sentence examples for interactions group from inspiring English sources

Short-interval intracortical inhibition results are shown in Tables 1 and 2. ANOVARM revealed significant interactions GROUP × CONDITION × ORDER [F 1,24) = 5.41; p = 0.03)] and GROUP × TIME [(F 1,24) = 6.23; p = 0.021)], while post hoc analysis did not show any significant effects (p > 0.05 for all comparisons).

More specifically, we wanted to determine if positive socioemotional interactions triggered, more often than negative socioemotional interactions, group engagement in a high-content co-regulation episode.  .

More specifically, we wanted to determine if positive socioemotional interactions triggered, more often than negative socioemotional interactions, group engagement in a high-content co-regulation episode.

Single activities as well as the sum of activities were tested for group specific differences (intervention group vs. control group), for changes over time (T0, T1, T2) and for interactions (group specific evolvement over time).

Motor threshold results and the number of stimuli given to each subject are shown in Tables 1 and 2. ANOVARM revealed significant interactions GROUP × TIME [F 1,24) = 6.28; p = 0.02] and GROUP × ORDER [F 1,24) = 5.43; p = 0.03].

Significant interactions (group × intervention period) suggested treatment effects in the analysis.

Complex Granger causality is then applied to three different biological problems in order to illustrate its ability to capture these new types of interactions (group-to-signal, group-to-group and group-to-interaction).

Generalized estimating equation for repeated-measures was used to analyze the gut hormone levels to detect group-by-time interactions, group-by-BMI interactions and inter-group differences.

Finally, three-way interactions (group-by-expression-by-orientation) were also observed for the 500 600 ms time window, in vicinity to P8 (Z = 1.61, P = 0.05, see Supporting Information Fig. S3A).

Unexpectedly, cluster analysis identified three, not two, distinct groups of users: high broadcasters, high communicators and a high interaction group.

To test the hypotheses, we varied the proportion of partner types in the interaction group.