close to significancep = 0.11
The fact that more false alarms (conscious reports of target presence when no target was actually presented) were committed when central cues were spatially predictive (12% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1) than when they were not (6% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1), together with the finding of significant differences in the general d′ between spatially predictive and non-predictive cues, and close to significance differences in response criterion [ t (13) = 1.64, p = 0.11], strongly suggests that participants may have adopted a stricter response criterion to report targets at the unattended vs. the attended location, especially when central cues were spatially predictive of target appearance (Hsu et al., 2011 ).