marginally significantp = .051
However, the three-way interaction for RT was marginally significant, F (1,101) = 3.90, p = .051, η p 2 = .04.
However, the three-way interaction for RT was marginally significant, F (1,101) = 3.90, p = .051, η p 2 = .04.
The interaction between distractor probability and distractor presence approached significance, F (1,50) = 3.68, p = .06, η p 2 = .07.
For context-repeat trials, the interaction between distractor presence and distractor probability failed to reach significance, F (1,101) = 2.03, p = .16, η p 2 = .02, though the pattern was the same that has been observed elsewhere in the paper, with a larger effect of capture on low probability trials (128 ms) compared with high probability trials (93 ms).
Explicit knowledge As in Experiment 1, participants numerically rated high-probability background images as being more likely to predict a distractor-present trial (44.8%) than low-probability background images (41.8%); however, this did not reach statistical significance, t (50) = 1.33, p = .19, Cohen’s d = 0.19.
However, we note that these effects should be interpreted with caution given the marginal significance of the interaction effect.