The article challenges the traditional dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up attentional control, arguing that it fails to account for various selection biases that cannot be explained by current goals or physical salience. It proposes an alternative framework that integrates past selection history, current goals, and physical salience into a priority map to better explain attentional control. The top-down versus bottom-up dichotomy is considered inadequate because it conflates distinct sources of selection bias, such as selection history and reward history, which can influence attention independently of current goals. The article highlights that selection history effects, such as priming of pop-out, and reward history effects, such as the influence of previous rewards on attention, can lead to selection biases that contradict current goals. These effects suggest that attentional control is more complex than previously thought, requiring a more comprehensive taxonomy that includes past selection history. The article also discusses the role of reward in attentional control, noting that reward can influence attentional selection even when it contradicts current goals. The proposed framework integrates these factors into a priority map, offering a more accurate understanding of attentional control. The article concludes that the traditional dichotomy is insufficient and that a more integrated approach is needed to fully understand attentional control.The article challenges the traditional dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up attentional control, arguing that it fails to account for various selection biases that cannot be explained by current goals or physical salience. It proposes an alternative framework that integrates past selection history, current goals, and physical salience into a priority map to better explain attentional control. The top-down versus bottom-up dichotomy is considered inadequate because it conflates distinct sources of selection bias, such as selection history and reward history, which can influence attention independently of current goals. The article highlights that selection history effects, such as priming of pop-out, and reward history effects, such as the influence of previous rewards on attention, can lead to selection biases that contradict current goals. These effects suggest that attentional control is more complex than previously thought, requiring a more comprehensive taxonomy that includes past selection history. The article also discusses the role of reward in attentional control, noting that reward can influence attentional selection even when it contradicts current goals. The proposed framework integrates these factors into a priority map, offering a more accurate understanding of attentional control. The article concludes that the traditional dichotomy is insufficient and that a more integrated approach is needed to fully understand attentional control.