"... In PAGE 4: ... This proposition was further studied using chi-square and contingency coefficient tests. Table2 shows that there is an impact in which group the user belongs and whether he or she likes the service. That is especially true for example in the guidance service like most of all in locating leisure sites (C=0.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ...As you can see lt; Table2 gt;, there are some differences within the groups. Studying mass of transfer ability points that offer contents visualized information with Web and Mobile(web=18.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ...05 was considered to be of statistical significance. RESULTS Table1 shows the comparison on the AP performance between the groups. The study group had significantly less fixation loss, false positive error, and false negative error than controls (p,0.... ..."

"... In PAGE 15: ...Results are shown in Table2 . Participants in the RELATIONAL group scored significantly higher on the bond subscale of the Working Alliance Inventory than those in the NON-RELATIONAL group, assessed on both days 7 and 27 (p=.... In PAGE 15: ...roup (p lt;.05). There were no significant differences between the RELATIONAL and NON- RELATIONAL groups on physical activity outcome measures, although the RELATIONAL and NON-RELATIONAL groups combined did outperform the CONTROL group on a few of these measures (approaching significance; see Table 2). Table2 . Between-Group Planned Comparisons Table 3.... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ...igure 3. Mean vs. Capability Level Comparsion for BU2 Similar analysis is used to ascertain whether a difference exists between the two business units. We conducted univariate F-tests to determine any significant difference that may exist between the two business units for each capability area (see Table6 ). The results show that two of the four comparisons passed the relative test.... ..."

"... In PAGE 14: ... Subjects performed the tasks faster the second time when they switched input groups, and the average percent reduction was higher for all tasks. Table3 summarizes the results for... In PAGE 23: ... Intermittent and experienced users of speech input may achieve greater reductions in task completion time. This conjecture is supported by the results for the second trials ( Table3 ), which show a greater decrease in task times for speech input users over the first trials. The error rates due to user mistakes were roughly the same for both input groups, and recognition errors, averaged over all the tasks, occurred for 6.... ..."

"... In PAGE 28: ... In addition, a single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed between groups in the occu- pational experience, VR/simulator experience, and in- structor/noninstructor groups. Table6 shows the p- values for these analyses. In all cases, the responses do not seem to indicate any significant between-group dif- ferences.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ... This analysis shows significant conditioning for both the siphon and the mantle with 0.5 set forward training and not with any other CS+-US interval ( Table2 ). Thus, the interstim- ulus interval function does not depend on whether the siphon or mantle is the CS, within our limits of resolution.... ..."

"... In PAGE 19: ... For nonword repetition there was a clear effect both of age and dyslexia (deriving from the younger dyslexic subjects) and furthermore the younger dyslexics were even out-performed by their reading age controls on the longer stimuli, as found by Gathercole and Baddeley. The group effects are summarised in Table3 . Note that the second column gives the mean... ..."