This section contains information for the paper "Control over attentional capture within 170 ms by long-term memory control settings: Evidence from the N2pc" (Plater, Giammarco, Joubran, & Al-Aidroos), submitted to Psychonomic Bulletin and Review as a Brief Report. Observers adopt attentional control settings based on their current goals, and these attentional control settings guide attention to relevant stimuli in the environment. Attentional capture is said to be *contingent* on the attentional control setting, such that searched-for stimuli capture attention and not searched-for stimuli do not capture attention. Recent research indicates that attentional control settings can be maintained in long-term memory, as 30 searched-for objects produce contingent capture (Giammarco et al., 2016; *Visual Cognition*). It seems surprising that long-term memory can guide attention quickly enough to support attentional capture. **Here, we test whether long-term memory attentional control settings really reflect early attentional capture.** We recorded electroencephalography while participants memorized and searched for 30 complex visual objects in an attention cueing task. Participants reported which of two targets (one studied target, one novel target) was previously studied, ignoring the cues that appeared just before the targets. Searching for the studied targets induces the attentional control setting. New for this experiment, all trials contained two cue objects (one studied cue, one non-studied cue) to control for effects of masking (i.e., the appearance of the cue might partially make the target stimuli undetectable / less detectable) and perceptual evoked responses (i.e., equating brain activity based on the appearance of cues at each location). As studied and non-studied cues were randomly selected from the same pool of objects for each participant, and differences in responding (either in reaction times or electrical activity at the scalp) must be attributable to participants searching for the studied objects. In a typical cueing task where only one cue is shown at a time, the target could be either cued (cue and target at same location) or uncued (cue and target at different locations), and contingent capture (i.e., evidence that participants had adopted an attentional control setting for the searched-for stimuli) would be assessed by separately examining cueing effects for searched-for and not searched-for stimuli. A cueing effect is faster reaction times for a cued target than an uncued target, and if participants have adopted an attentional control setting for the searched-for stimuli, then searched-for stimuli should elicit cueing effects, and stimuli that are not searched for should not elicit cueing effects. As we presented two simultaneous cues on each trial, all targets were cued, and we cannot measure contingent capture in the typical way. However, we still saw a significant cueing effect in the reaction time data. On target-present trials (i.e., trials that included one studied target and one novel target), participants responded more quickly to studied targets that were preceded by studied cues than studied targets that were preceded by non-studied cues. This cueing effect in reaction times indicates that studied cues (which were supposed to be ignored) captured attention. The novel results for the current experiment come from the electroencephalography. On target-absent trials (i.e., trials that contained no targets to avoid possible contamination of the EEG signal by the appearance of additional stimuli), **studied cues elicited a significant (*p* = .005) N2pc event-related potential that was detectable within 161.5 ms** (CI95 = [146.8, 176.1]). That is, studied cues preferentially elicited the marker of selective attention, indicating that participants rapidly shifted attention towards the studied cue instead of the non-studied cue. The N2pc was calculated as the difference in voltage across posterior electrodes (PO7/PO8) between 180 - 220 ms; the voltage ipsilateral to (i.e., on the same side as) the studied cue was subtracted from the voltage contralateral to (i.e., on the opposite side as) the studied cue. **We conclude that long-term memory attentional control settings reflect early attentional orienting towards searched-for stimuli.** Our results reflect the ability for observers to recognize objects through long-term memory before attention is shifted to that object. Additionally, we propose that contemporary models of attentional capture need to be updated, as they - at present - cannot account for rapid long-term memory attentional control settings. **Ethics.** All studies received ethics approval though the University of Guelph's Research Ethics Board. Please note that data for Experiments 1a and 1b were collected before our ethics allowed for Open Science publication, and thus, is not included online. **Contact.** For questions or comments, please e-mail Dr. Lindsay Plater (lplater@uoguelph.ca) or the Principal Investigator Dr. Naseem Al-Aidroos (naseem@uoguelph.ca).