Mean reaction time has been presented in Figure 3. In order to compare the reaction time in Experiment 2 with that in Experiment 1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with experiments as a between-participant variable. The ANOVA showed that the mean reaction time was shorter in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, F(1,54) = 16.47, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.23, indicating that participants were urged to respond quickly by the reduction of the response time deadline. Mean hit and false alarm rates have been shown in Figure 4. In order to compare the task difficulty in Experiment 2 with that in Experiment 1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on the hit rates with experiments as a between-participant variable. The ANOVA showed that the mean hit rate was lower in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, F(1,54) = 5.12, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.09. In contrast, the ANOVA conducted on the false alarm rates showed that the mean false alarm rate was higher in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, F(1,54) = 13.26, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.20. These results suggest that the reduction of the response time deadline in the go/no-go task increased the task difficulty in Experiment 2 compared with that in Experiment 1.