Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42081577›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2026

Past and present goals are represented concurrently during visual search.

Damian Koevoet, Dirk Van Moorselaar, Edward Awh, Stefan Van der Stigchel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Damian KoevoetExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9395-6524
Dirk Van MoorselaarExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Edward AwhDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Mind and Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Stefan Van der StigchelExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual selection is often conceptualized as emerging from goal-, stimulus- and history-driven processes within spatial priority maps. Although extensive work detailed the interplay between goal- and stimulus-driven selection, it is largely unknown how goal- and history-driven processes jointly drive selection. While persistent neural firing likely underlies goal-driven selection, it is generally assumed that activity-silent mechanisms effectuate history-driven selection. Due to these different underlying neural mechanisms, simultaneously tracking goal- and history-driven influences neurally has proven difficult. We here employed EEG decoding techniques to simultaneously track and compare goal- and history-driven influences on search. We first established a history-driven signal: Neural decoding closely tracked the target location from the preceding trial. We further demonstrated simultaneous, distinct neural representations of the current and preceding target locations. Strikingly, even when participants attended an upcoming target location before search could commence, prior target locations were reactivated. Our results show that past experiences are reactivated in an inflexible fashion, and do so even when prior targets are completely task-irrelevant. Together, we demonstrate that goal- and history-driven selection are neurally distinct, and reveal that both influences are represented in parallel.

Indexed as

GoalsVisual PerceptionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansPhotic StimulationReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID42081577
PMCPMC13155657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.