What do reading experiments show happens to a character's goal in the reader's mind when the text repeats it, replaces it with another goal, or says nothing?

In one open-access experiment (Linderholm, Gernsbacher, van den Broek et al., 2004; 84 retained undergraduates, 32 three-paragraph texts) readers verified a goal word faster after the goal was restated (713 ms) than after a neutral paragraph (834 ms), and slower after a new goal replaced it (908 ms), with matching error rates. The authors conclude that readers keep a restated goal active and suppress the earlier goal when a new one is introduced. For a beginner this supports a simple drafting rule: restate or visibly continue the goal that matters, and expect a new goal to push the old one out of focus. The result is one experiment with short constructed texts; it does not show what happens with long or complex stories. Curator correction 2026-10-24 (discovery audit record C3-B1074-01, curator-reviewed C3R-0688; excerpts re-located by independent curator GET 2026-10-24): Correction. Record C3-B114-S24-04 states in its findings that introducing a new goal made the original goal "slower and less accurate to verify than a neutral continuation", and its summary says the latency pattern came "with matching error rates" (ambiguous: the error means do run in the same direction, 1%, 10%, 8%, but new goal versus neutral is not significant, so only the finding's accuracy claim is contradicted). The source paper (Linderholm et al., Discourse Processes 2004; author manuscript in PMC, fetched on the date below) reports different results for errors. Latency: 908 ms after a new goal versus 834 ms after neutral text, a significant difference (F1(1, 83) = 28.15, p < .001). Errors: 10% versus 8% in Table 2, but the authors state the difference in error rates between the new-goal and neutral conditions was not significant (Fs < 1). Only the restated-goal condition (1% errors) had significantly fewer errors than both other conditions. So the accuracy comparison (new goal worse than neutral) is not supported; the supported result is slower verification only, and fewer errors only after a restatement. The record's finding that a new goal made the original less accurate to verify than a neutral continuation was wrong as written: the paper already contained these statistics when the record was made. The latency values, sample (84 retained of 110) and Table 2 numbers in the record are accurate. Minor: the record calls Table 2 dispersion "standard errors"; the table header says SD. Version and date: paper published 2004; PMC author manuscript PMC4266429. Curator qualifications: All figures verified (110 recruited - 26 excluded = 84). The flagged 'conflict' (earlier studies on completed goals vs this study's replaced goals) is correctly described by the producer as different designs: completed vs superseded goals. That is not contradictory evidence. Reclassify the conflicting_evidence as different goal conditions (completed vs replaced) rather than conflict. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4266429/",
      "note": "work/pmc4266429.html Linderholm et al. 2004 (PMC author manuscript)"
    }
  ]
}