SAVOR THE NEW? A SINGLE SESSION OF SAVORING DOES NOT ENHANCE LPP TO PLEASANT IMAGES BEYOND PASSIVE VIEWING

SAVOR THE NEW? A SINGLE SESSION OF SAVORING DOES NOT ENHANCE LPP TO PLEASANT IMAGES BEYOND PASSIVE VIEWING | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 3 January 2026 V1 Latest version Share on SAVOR THE NEW? A SINGLE SESSION OF SAVORING DOES NOT ENHANCE LPP TO PLEASANT IMAGES BEYOND PASSIVE VIEWING Authors : Valentina Mologni 0009-0004-7275-0131 [email protected] , Carola Dell'Acqua 0000-0002-8394-4554 , Letizia Soliman , Igor Marchetti , Paolo Bernardis , Romina Angeleri , and Simone Messerotti Benvenuti 0000-0002-1430-6807 Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176743456.69166871/v1 214 views 101 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Savoring is a present-focused emotion regulation strategy aimed at enhancing positive affect. Previous research has shown that savoring can increase the emotional processing of pleasant stimuli, as reflected in larger late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes for savored compared to passively viewed images. However, most savoring studies have examined neural responses during the task itself, leaving it unclear whether these effects generalize to novel stimuli. Moreover, no study has assessed baseline LPP responses to pleasant stimuli prior to the regulation session, accounting for interindividual differences in motivated attention. The present study addressed these gaps by examining whether a single savoring session – compared to a control passive viewing task – enhanced LPP amplitude in response to pleasant images and whether such effects generalized to novel stimuli. Sixty-one young adults (44 females) completed an electroencephalography (EEG) recording across three phases: a pre-session LPP assessment (T 0 ), an experimental session – savoring or control passive viewing – and a post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ). Results showed a significantly larger LPP for pleasant than neutral images, with this effect more pronounced during the post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ), independent of the experimental condition. Moreover, during the savoring session, LPP was larger for view than savor trials, suggesting that the selection of highly arousing stimuli may have left limited room for savoring to enhance emotional processing. Overall, these findings suggest that a single savoring session offers no clear advantage over simple exposure to highly arousing pleasant stimuli in healthy adults, pointing the need to clarify when savoring can meaningfully influence emotional processing. SAVOR THE NEW? A SINGLE SESSION OF SAVORING DOES NOT ENHANCE LPP TO PLEASANT IMAGES BEYOND PASSIVE VIEWING Valentina Mologni a,b , Carola Dell’Acqua a , Letizia Soliman a , Igor Marchetti c , Paolo Bernardis d , Romina Angeleri e , Simone Messerotti Benvenuti a,b a Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy b Padova Neuroscience Center (PNC), University of Padua, Padua, Italy c Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Italy d Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy e Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Università Telematica eCampus, Italy * Corresponding author: Valentina Mologni Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padua, Italy E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Savoring is a present-focused emotion regulation strategy aimed at enhancing positive affect. Previous research has shown that savoring can increase the emotional processing of pleasant stimuli, as reflected in larger late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes for savored compared to passively viewed images. However, most savoring studies have examined neural responses during the task itself, leaving it unclear whether these effects generalize to novel stimuli. Moreover, no study has assessed baseline LPP responses to pleasant stimuli prior to the regulation session, accounting for interindividual differences in motivated attention. The present study addressed these gaps by examining whether a single savoring session – compared to a control passive viewing task – enhanced LPP amplitude in response to pleasant images and whether such effects generalized to novel stimuli. Sixty-one young adults (44 females) completed an electroencephalography (EEG) recording across three phases: a pre-session LPP assessment (T 0 ), an experimental session – savoring or control passive viewing – and a post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ). Results showed a significantly larger LPP for pleasant than neutral images, with this effect more pronounced during the post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ), independent of the experimental condition. Moreover, during the savoring session, LPP was larger for view than savor trials, suggesting that the selection of highly arousing stimuli may have left limited room for savoring to enhance emotional processing. Overall, these findings suggest that a single savoring session offers no clear advantage over simple exposure to highly arousing pleasant stimuli in healthy adults, pointing the need to clarify when savoring can meaningfully influence emotional processing. Keywords: emotion regulation, savoring, LPP, appetitive system Introduction Savoring is a present-focused emotion regulation strategy that involves generating, enhancing, and maintaining positive emotions via experiential absorption, by willfully deepening the engagement with the pleasurable aspects of a stimulus rather than modifying its meaning (Bryant & Veroff, 2017). It promotes focused attention on the stimulus’s hedonic qualities, intensifying and prolonging the emotional response through modalities that enrich its salience, such as sensory-perceptual sharpening or absorption (Bryant, 2021). Savoring is thought to have a central role in emotional well-being (Quoidbach et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2014; Smith & Hollinger-Smith, 2015) and has been suggested to reduce depressive symptoms (Craske et al., 2024). Laboratory studies indicate that savoring enhances both subjective emotional experience and electrocortical responses to pleasant and even neutral stimuli (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). To investigate the effects of emotion regulation strategies in controlled settings, event-related potentials (ERPs) provide a valuable tool, offering millisecond-level temporal resolution (Luck, 2014). Particularly, the Late Positive Potential (LPP) is among the most widely employed ERPs in the evaluation of emotional processing (Bylsma et al., 2022; Lang & Bradley, 2010; Palomba et al., 1997; Pastor et al., 2008; Smith & Hollinger-Smith, 2015) and regulation (Bautista et al., 2022; Beauregard et al., 2001; Meynadasy et al., 2022; Moran et al., 2013; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). The LPP is a sustained, positive deflection that typically begins around 300 ms following stimulus onset and persists across the entire presentation of the stimulus (Cuthbert et al., 2000a; Hajcak et al., 2010). Its amplitude is consistently larger for emotional stimuli – both pleasant and unpleasant – rather than for neutral stimuli and is primarily modulated by arousal (Schupp et al., 2003, 2004). For these properties, the LPP is considered a neural marker of motivated attention toward salient stimuli (Bradley & Lang, 1994; Schupp et al., 2006). LPP is commonly measured at parietal sites during emotional processing, where its amplitude is typically maximal (Cuthbert et al., 2000a; Hajcak & Foti, 2020; Schupp et al., 2003, 2004, 2006). While previous research has primarily focused on the modulation of the LPP during the regulation of negative emotional states (e.g., using cognitive reappraisal to reduce unpleasantness (Dennis & Hajcak, 2009; Kennedy & Montreuil, 2021; Lazarus, 1991; MacNamara et al., 2022; Moser et al., 2014), more recent studies have shifted attention toward emotion regulation strategies aimed at increasing positive emotions, such as savoring (Colombo et al., 2021; Quoidbach et al., 2015). Several studies showed that savoring increased the LPP to pleasant and neutral pictures in parieto-occipital and fronto-central regions (Cheng et al., 2023; Jackson et al., 2024; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). Notably, some studies have reported that these effects persist over time, with larger LPP amplitudes still present 20 minutes later when participants were re-exposed to the same images without savoring instructions (Wilson & MacNamara, 2024). Although savoring appears effective in enhancing emotional elaboration during active upregulation of pleasant content, evidence of its generalization effects—namely, whether its benefits extend to novel but similar stimuli—remains limited. Wilson and MacNamara (2024) showed that savoring increased the LPP during a subsequent passive viewing task of novel stimuli, but only for participants who had previously savored animal images. This suggests that savoring can exert lasting effects on the emotional elaboration of subsequently presented pleasant stimuli and that these effects may depend on stimulus type, aligning with research suggesting that the efficacy of different emotion regulation strategies vary depending on stimulus characteristics (Fuentes-Sánchez et al., 2019; Langeslag & Surti, 2017). A further methodological consideration, which has not yet been explored in savoring research, concerns the assessment of baseline LPP responses to pleasant stimuli before any task engagement. In typical savoring paradigms, participants are presented with two types of instructions: when instructed to “view”, they just passively observe the upcoming image; when instructed to “savor”, the actively engage in savoring upon the image presentation (e.g., (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). While “view” conditions within savoring paradigms provide a within-task comparison, no study has systematically measured pre-task LPP to account for interindividual differences in emotional elaboration before regulation. Moreover, the lack of control conditions in previous studies—such as groups that simply passively view the same stimuli without engaging in savoring—limits the ability to distinguish effects attributable to the regulation strategy from those resulting from mere exposure to positive content. Taken together, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a single savoring session, as well as its potential generalization to novel stimuli, in comparison with a passive viewing control session. To account for interindividual differences in baseline emotional responsiveness, an initial (pre-session) LPP assessment was conducted before the emotion regulation session (i.e., a savoring or a control passive viewing) to provide a measure of participants’ baseline emotional responses to the stimuli. A second (post-session) LPP assessment was conducted to evaluate potential generalization effects of the regulation strategy. The LPP was also recorded during the experimental session, whether participants were engaging in savoring or in the control passive viewing task. In sum, this design introduced two complementary levels of control for assessing the efficacy of savoring: (1) the inclusion of a control passive viewing group enabled the identification of effects specifically attributable to savoring; (2) incorporating baseline LPP responses allowed us to evaluate session-related changes while accounting for pre-existing differences in emotional reactivity. It was hypothesized that participants in the savoring condition, relative to those in the control condition, would show a greater increase in LPP amplitude from the pre- to post-session assessment, reflecting enhanced and generalized responses to pleasant stimuli. Furthermore, based on previous literature, it was hypothesized that the LPP during the savoring session would be larger on trials in which participants were instructed to savor rather than simply view pleasant stimuli. Participants Sixty-one Italian Caucasian students (44 females, mean (M) age = 22.2 + 2.3 years, range = 18-29) from the University of Padua (Italy) voluntarily participated in the study. An a-priori power analysis was performed using G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2009). Based on previous studies investigating emotional processing during savoring, which have reported medium-to-large effects on the LPP amplitude (e.g., Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024), the analysis indicated that a sample size of 61 participants would be sufficient to detect a medium effect size (f = 0.25) with a statistical power of 0.8 (α = 0.05, predictors = 2). Hence, this suggests that this sample provides reasonable sensitivity to detect similar effects. The enrolled sample was medically healthy and free from psychotropic medication, as assessed with an ad-hoc interview. Exclusion criteria included a current diagnosis or history of cardiovascular and neurological diseases and a formal diagnosis of mental diseases. Prior to the first visit in the laboratory, all participants completed an online screening, encompassing the Italian version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996; Sica & Ghisi, 2007) to evaluate depressive symptoms over the past two weeks, and the Snaith Hamilton Pleasure Scale to evaluate consummatory anhedonia (Snaith et al., 1995). All participants had a normal-to-corrected vision and were naïve to the purpose of the experiment. Moreover, 32 participants (24 females, mean (M) age = 22.3+ 2.8) were assigned to the savoring condition, whereas 29 participants (20 females, (M) age = 22.03 + 1.54) were assigned to the passive viewing condition. The group assignment followed a semi-randomized procedure: participants were alternately allocated to the two conditions in the order of their enrollment in the study, while ensuring that the groups were balanced for sex and age. All participants understood and signed the informed consent forms. The study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki on research on human subjects and was approved by the Ethical Committee of Psychological Research, Area 17, University of Padua (prot. no. 456-c). Participants received monetary compensation of 13 euros for their participation. Assessment Participants completed two LPP assessment tasks, one before (pre-session, T 0 ) and one after (post-session, T 1 ) the savoring or the passive viewing control session. During both assessment tasks, they underwent an EEG recording. To prevent the experimental procedure from becoming excessively long and to minimize participant fatigue, the study was conducted across two consecutive days. On the first day, participants underwent an anamnestic interview and completed the pre-session LPP assessment (T 0 ). On the second day, participants completed the emotion regulation session (savoring vs. control passive viewing) followed by the post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ). In both assessment phases, participants completed a passive viewing task encompassing two blocks of 30 stimuli, for a total of 60 trials. Each trial began with a 2000 ms baseline period, during which a white fixation dot was displayed on a grey screen, followed by the presentation of an emotional image for 3000 ms. Subsequently, a variable inter-trial interval (ITI) ranging from 2000 to 4000 ms was presented, consisting of the same white fixation dot shown during the baseline (Figure 1). The emotional stimuli selected included 30 images for each assessment task (600 × 800 pixels), taken from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang et al., 1997). Specifically, 15 pleasant images (erotic couples, sports) and 15 neutral images (neutral scenes or faces, household objects) were selected based on their normative valence and arousal ratings, with pleasant images scoring significantly higher than neutral images in both dimensions ( ps < .001)11IAPS catalogue picture numbers, T 0 -assessment: 2102, 2575, 2596, 4599, 4604, 4664, 4680, 4683, 4668, 5700, 5833, 7006, 7010, 7014, 7035, 7036, 7041, 7056, 7059, 7130, 7236, 7547, 7560, 8033, 8161, 8170, 8186, 8193, 8251, 8470. T 1 -assessment: 2305, 2383, 2396, 4604, 4623, 4668, 4680, 4690, 4694, 5628, 5629, 5660, 7021, 7026, 7033, 7037, 7045, 7052, 7175, 7211, 7233, 7500, 7595, 7705, 8031, 8190, 8400, 8191, 8193, 8499. Importantly, distinct sets of emotional images were employed across the three study phases (i.e., the assessments and the experimental session). Stimuli were carefully matched across phases in terms of both content type and normative ratings to ensure consistency in the type of response elicited (valence-T 0 vs. valence-T 1 , all ps > .20; arousal-T 0 vs. arousal-T 1 , all ps > .42; see Table S1, supplementary) (Leite et al., 2012; Moran et al., 2013). Finally, to induce robust psychophysiological responses, only highly arousing pleasant images (mean (SD) arousal = 6.17 + 0.53) were selected (Bradley et al., 2001). At the end of the passive viewing task all the 30 images were presented again, and ratings of emotional valence and arousal were obtained using a computerized version of the 9-point Valence and Arousal scales of the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; (Bradley & Lang, 1994). Each assessment task lasted approximately 15 minutes. Savoring and control passive viewing session During this phase, participants were assigned to either a savoring ( n = 32) or a passive viewing session ( n = 29) while undergoing an EEG recording. Those in the savoring condition were instructed that they would be viewing a series of pleasant and neutral images, each one preceded by an instruction. When the word “VIEW” appeared, participants were asked to observe the upcoming image as they would normally do. In contrast, when the word “SAVOR” appeared, participants were instructed to actively enhance and prolong the positive emotions elicited by the upcoming image. Before starting the task, participants were read a script with savoring instructions, based on a translated and adapted version of the instructions used by Wilson and MacNamara (2021). Then, they completed three practice trials, during which participants were asked to savor one pleasant image and to simply view one neutral and one pleasant image. During the main task, the instruction “SAVOR” was always followed by pleasant pictures, while the instruction “VIEW” was followed by both pleasant and neutral pictures. To minimize potential carry-over effects—such as participants’ difficulty in refraining from savoring an image they had previously savored when it was subsequently paired with the “VIEW” instruction—different pleasant images were consistently associated with the same instruction. The task comprised a total of 60 trials, divided into two blocks of 30 trials each. Each trial began with a 3000 ms baseline period, during which a white fixation dot appeared at the center of a grey screen. The instruction (“SAVOR” or “VIEW”) was then displayed for 3000 ms. This was followed by a variable inter-stimulus interval (ISI; 1500–2000 ms), during which the same fixation dot presented during the baseline was shown. An emotional image (pleasant, neutral) was subsequently shown for 8000 ms to give participants sufficient time to engage in savoring. Each trial ended with a variable ITI lasting 2000–3000 ms, during which the white fixation dot was presented again (Figure 2, Panel a). Participants assigned to the control passive viewing condition were asked to view the same emotional images shown to participants in the savoring condition. The number and structure of the trials were identical, except that no instruction to savor was presented at the beginning of the task (Figure 2, Panel b). As for the assessment phases, the emotional images presented during the emotion regulation session were selected from the IAPS (Lang et al., 1997). The set included 10 pleasant images (erotic couples, sports) and five neutral images (neutral scenes or faces, household objects), each presented twice within each block. Stimuli selection was based on their normative valence and arousal ratings, in a way that pleasant stimuli were significantly higher than neutral ones in both dimensions (all ps < .001)11IAPS catalogue picture numbers for the savoring and the control passive viewing conditions: 2493, 2512, 4611, 4651, 4652, 4695, 5626, 7004, 7009, 7224, 8034, 800, 8185, 8200, 8300. The savoring session lasted for approximately 18 minutes, while the control passive viewing session lasted for approximately 16 minutes. EEG recording and data reduction EEG was recorded using a 32-channel ANT system and a computer running eego™ software (ANT Neuro, Enschede, Netherlands). The elastic cap with 32 tin electrodes was arranged according to the 10–20 System (FP1, FPz, FP2, F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8, FC5, FC1, FC2, FC6, T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8, CP5, CP1, CP2, CP6, P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8, POz, O1, Oz, O2, and M1 and M2 [mastoids]), referenced online to CPz. Vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) was recorded using a bipolar montage to track blinks, with electrodes placed above and below the right orbit. Electrode impedance was kept below 10 kΩ. The EEG and the EOG signals were recorded with a band-pass filter from 0.3 to 30 Hz and sampled at 1000 Hz. EEG data was resampled to 500 Hz and re-referenced offline to a linked mastoids montage in EEGLAB (Delorme & Makeig, 2004). Further analyses were performed in Brainstorm (Tadel et al., 2011). Data was corrected for ocular artifacts using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). The EEG recordings from the pre- and post-session assessments (T 0 and T 1 ) and the experimental session (i.e., savoring or control passive viewing) were segmented into 3500 ms epochs , from 500 ms before the emotional image to 3000 ms after its onset (i.e., -500 to 3000 ms). All the epochs were baseline corrected by subtracting the mean pre-stimulus voltage from -250 ms to -50 ms. Then, the EEG epochs were semi-automatically screened for artifacts, defined as amplitude variations exceeding ±100 μV (peak-to-peak) for each channel, and contaminated trials were excluded. The remaining epochs were visually inspected to detect and reject any remaining artifacts (e.g., eye movements, muscle activity, segments showing fluctuations greater than ±100 μV). Average acceptance rates for the savoring and the control passive viewing groups across the three phases of the study (T 0 assessment, experimental session, T 1 assessment) are reported in Table S2 (see Table S2, supplementary). For the two assessment phases, no statistically significant differences in average acceptance rates were found between groups (savoring, control passive viewing) or across emotional conditions (all ps > .30). Similarly, within the savoring task, the number of trials included across the three conditions (view-neutral, view-pleasant, savor-pleasant) did not differ ( p = .78). By contrast, in the control passive viewing session the number of trials differed significantly across emotional conditions (view-neutral vs. view-pleasant, p < .01). This difference did not reflect unequal artifact rejection, but rather the experimental design. To match the stimulus set presented in the savoring session, images assigned to the savor-pleasant condition in the savoring task were included within the view-pleasant condition in the passive viewing control session, together with the view-pleasant images from the savoring task. This resulted in double the number of view-pleasant, compared to view-neutral trials. Visual inspection of the grand-average waveforms indicated that LPP amplitudes were maximal over parietal electrodes during the assessment phases and the experimental conditions (savoring, control passive viewing). Because anterior LPP activity has been linked to cognitive processes involved in emotion regulation (Moser et al., 2014; Shafir et al., 2015), which are also engaged during savoring (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024), LPP amplitudes were analyzed over two electrode pools: (1) parietal and central (P3, PZ, P4, C3, CZ, C4), (2) frontocentral and frontal (FC1, FC2, FC5, FC6, F3, FZ, F4) sites. For the LPP pre- and post-session assessments, the early LPP was quantified as the mean amplitude from 300 to 1000 ms post-stimulus, and the late LPP from 1000 to 1600 ms in the centroparietal pool. In the frontocentral and frontal pool, the grand averages showed a later onset on the LPP, therefore the early and late windows were defined as 600–1000 ms and 1000–1600 ms, respectively. For the experimental session (savoring and control passive viewing), the early LPP window was defined as 200–1000 ms, as visual inspection revealed that the LPP emerged earlier than in the assessment phases. The late LPP window was kept at 1000–1600 ms to ensure consistency with the assessment phases and to capture the extended emotional processes typically engaged during savoring (Wilson & MacNamara, 2024). Statistical analyses Statistical analyses were conducted in Rstudio (R Core Team, 2023). A p -value of .05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance. Because the sample consisted exclusively of healthy participants, BDI-II and SHAPS scores were generally low and exhibited skewed distributions. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965), which indicated deviations from normality for both measures. Consequently, group comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Wilcoxon, 1945), a nonparametric test that does not assume normally distributed data. Experimental hypotheses were tested using linear mixed-effect models with the lme4 and lmerTest packages (Bates et al., 2015; Kuznetsova et al., 2017). All models included participants as a random intercept. To examine the effect of the savoring vs. control passive viewing on self-reported valence and arousal ratings over time (from pre-session assessment, T 0 , to post-session assessment, T 1 ), two separate linear mixed-effects models were conducted. Each model included Time (T 0 , T 1 ), Condition (savoring vs. control passive viewing), and their interaction as fixed effects. To reduce the number of predictors and isolate the effect of the emotional category, differential subjective rating scores were employed (Δvalence = valence pleasant – valence neutral; Δarousal = arousal pleasant – arousal neutral). The model was the following: Model ← lmer (Δsubjective rating ∼ Time × Condition + (1|Subject)). Then, to examine the effect of savoring vs. control passive viewing on LPP changes over time (from pre-session assessment, T 0 , to post-session assessment, T 1 ), four separate linear mixed effect models were conducted. As for valence and arousal models, differential LPP scores were employed (ΔLPP = mean LPP to pleasant – mean LPP to neutral) to reduce the number of predictors and isolate the effect of the emotional category (Kappenman & Luck, 2016). Each model included Time (T 0 , T 1 ), Condition (savoring vs. control passive viewing), and their interaction as fixed effects. The four models examined these effects on LPP amplitudes computed across different electrode pools (parietal and central; frontocentral and frontal) at two distinct time windows (early LPP and late LPP). The model specification was as follows: Model ← lmer (ΔLPP ∼ Time × Condition + (1|Subject)). Finally, to examine the effect of trial type on the mean LPP amplitude during the savoring and passive viewing control sessions, four linear mixed-effects models were conducted for each group. These models were conducted on mean LPP amplitude rather than ΔLPP scores, as trial type in the savoring group included three levels (pleasant-savor, pleasant-view, and neutral-view). In the control group, instead, trial type included two levels (pleasant-view and neutral-view). For each group (savoring, control passive viewing), the four models tested the effect of trial type on the mean LPP amplitude extracted from the two electrode pools (parietal and central; frontocentral and frontal) and two distinct time windows (early and late LPP). The model specification was as follows: Model ← lmer (Mean LPP ∼ Trial type + (1|Subject)). Across all models, p -values obtained through the Satterthwaite approximation, as implemented in the lmerTest package, were provided. The collinearity was tested by calculating the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) with the vif function of the car package (Fox, Weisberg, & Price, 2019). Significant categorical effects ( p < .05) were followed by Tukey HSD post-hoc tests to correct for multiple comparisons. Results Table S3 reports the absolute mean valence and arousal ratings, as well as LPP amplitudes across the different time windows and electrodes polls, presented separately for the two groups (savoring vs. control passive viewing) at each assessment phase (see Table S3, supplementary). Clinical characteristics Mean and standard deviation were computed for BDI-II and SHAPS scores in the savoring and control passive viewing group. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated no significant differences between groups in BDI-II (savoring group, mean = 9.21 + 7.04; control passive viewing group, mean = 12.55 + 9.91, p = .22) and SHAPS (savoring group, mean = 2.03 + 2.45; control passive viewing group, mean = 1.62 + 1.78, p = .43) scores. Changes in valence and arousal self-report ratings from T 0 to T 1 Table 1 shows the results of the linear mixed-effect models predicting Δvalence and Δarousal scores from Time, Condition, and their interaction. The model predicting Δvalence scores revealed a significant effect of Time, with higher Δvalence at T 0 compared to T 1 ( p Tukey < .01, see Figure 3). In contrast, the model predicting Δarousal scores revealed no significant effects. In both models, VIF values were all < 2.21, indicating acceptable levels of multicollinearity among the predictor variables. Δ LPP changes from T 0 to T 1 at the parietal and central electrode pool Table 2 shows the results of the linear mixed-effects models predicting ΔLPP at parietal and central electrode pool for the early (300–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) time windows. Both models revealed a significant effect of Time (see Figure 4), with ΔLPP scores being higher at T 1 compared to T 0 (all ps Tukey < .01). No effect of Condition or Time × Condition emerged. Δ LPP changes from T 0 to T 1 at the frontocentral and frontal electrode pool Table 3 shows the results of the linear mixed-effects models predicting ΔLPP at frontocentral and frontal electrode poll for the early (600–1000 ms) and the late (1000–1600 ms) time windows. Analogously to the models on central and parietal electrodes, both models revealed a significant effect of Time, with ΔLPP scores being higher at T 1 compared to T 0 (all ps Tukey < .01, see 5). No significant effect of Condition or Time × Condition emerged. Mean LPP amplitude during the savoring session For the parietal and central pool, the models predicting the mean LPP amplitude in the early (200–1000 ms) and the late (1000–1600 ms) time windows revealed a significant effect of Trial type (LPP - early time window, F (2, 542) = 11.11, p < .01; LPP - late time window, F (2,542) = 10.44, p < .01; Figure 6, left panel). In both time windows, the mean LPP was larger for “view” compared to “savor” trials (view-pleasant vs. savor-pleasant, all ps Tukey < .01; view-neutral vs. savor-pleasant, all ps Tukey < .01). Similarly, the two models on the frontocentral and frontal pool revealed similar results, with a significant effect of Trial type found in both time windows (LPP-early time window, F (2, 542) = 24.52, p < .01; F (2,542) = 10.44, p < .01; Figure 6, right panel). Specifically, the LPP was larger to “view” compared to “savor” trials (view-pleasant vs. savor-pleasant, all ps Tukey < .01; view-neutral vs. savor-pleasant, all ps Tukey < .01). In addition, in the early time window, the LPP was also larger for view-pleasant, compared to view-neutral trials ( p Tukey = .01). Mean LPP amplitude during control passive viewing For the parietal and central pool, the models predicting the mean LPP amplitude in the early (200–1000 ms) and the late (1000–1600 ms) time windows revealed a significant effect of Trial type (LPP - early time window, F (1, 318) = 26.55, p < . 01; LPP - late time window, F (1, 318) = 13.52, p < .01; Figure 7, left panel). Analogously, the two models on the frontocentral and frontal pool revealed a significant effect of Trial type in both time windows (LPP-early time window, F (1, 318) = 10.31, p < .01; F (1,318) = 6.39, p < .01; Figure 7, right panel). Across all models, the LPP was larger for view-pleasant compared to view-neutral trials (all p s < .01). Discussion To date, relatively few studies have investigated the extent to which savoring enhances the elaboration processing of pleasant stimuli, as indexed by LPP amplitude. Furthermore, empirical evidence regarding the generalization effects of savoring remains scarce (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). The present study sought to address these gaps by examining whether a single session of savoring modulates neural responses to pleasant stimuli and whether such modulation persists beyond the immediate regulatory context in a sample of young adults. Additionally, this study compared the effects of a savoring condition to a passive viewing control condition to assess whether savoring facilitates increased emotional processing above the effects attributable to mere exposure, as this aspect that has not been incorporated in prior savoring research. To address these aims, the LPP was assessed during three phases: the pre-session LPP assessment (T 0 ), the experimental session (a savoring or a control passive viewing task), and the post-session LPP assessment at (T 1 ), administered after the experimental session. This design allowed controlling for interindividual differences in baseline emotional responsiveness and, through the inclusion of a control condition, to disentangle the specific effects of savoring. Overall, the present findings revealed an increased ΔLPP (LPP to pleasant – LPP to neutral) amplitude from the assessment T 0 to the assessment T 1 , regardless of the experimental session to which participants were assigned. This suggests that, in non-clinical samples, passive viewing might be as effective as savoring in enhancing the emotional elaboration and motivated attention to pleasant stimuli. Specifically, results showed that ΔLPP scores were larger during the post-session LPP assessment (T 1 ) across both electrodes pools (parietal and central; frontocentral and frontal) and time windows. This pattern highlights both an increase in emotional processing – typically reflected in the increased early LPP amplitude at central and parietal sites (Bylsma et al., 2022; Meynadasy et al., 2022) as well as a greater engagement with cognitive processes involved in emotion elaboration, evidenced by the larger LPP at frontal sites and later in time (Foti et al., 2009; MacNamara et al., 2022; Meynadasy et al., 2022; Moser et al., 2014). At support of this, modulations of the LPP amplitude across different scalp sites have been reported in response to different emotion regulation strategies, offering insights into their efficacy in increasing (or decreasing) emotional processing (Moser et al., 2014; Shafir et al., 2015; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). Specifically, the LPP has been found to become larger at frontal sites over time (Foti et al., 2009) at later emotional processing stages, potentially reflecting the willful modulation of stimulus salience through top-down cognitive control processes (MacNamara et al., 2022; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024). Notably, ΔLPP scores were significantly higher regardless of the condition to which participants were assigned. Hence, repeated exposure to pleasant images alone may enhance subsequent emotional processing, as viewing pleasant images multiple times may activate associative memory networks and reward-related processes sufficiently to amplify subsequent responses to similar images (Gordon & Holyoak, 1983; Palumbo et al., 2021). In addition, this effect might be explained by the impossibility of ensuring that participants in the control passive viewing group merely observed the pictures presented without engaging in some emotion regulations strategies. As the study sample consisted of individuals without any mental disorders, they might have naturally engaged with the pleasant content of the images even in absence of specific instructions. At the same time, these results call for a more nuanced understanding of savoring’s generalization effects, as its benefits may depend on stimulus characteristics and extend only to specific types of stimuli, warranting further investigation. Further work is needed to examine the effectiveness of savoring while systematically controlling for the normative valence and arousal of the images. Previous savoring studies have primarily assessed LPP changes during the task using pleasant and neutral stimuli with relatively low arousal ratings (e.g., affiliative scenes, animals; see Jackson et al., 2024; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024), yet no study to date has investigated how savoring’s generalization effects vary as a function of arousal dimension. Regarding subjective ratings, the results showed significantly higher Δvalence scores at T 0 than at T 1 , while no significant changes for Δarousal scores appeared from the two assessment sessions. This pattern likely reflects a selective change in the evaluation of neutral stimuli: neutral pictures were rated as more pleasant during the assessment post-session (T 1 ) than the assessment pre-session (T 0 ), while ratings for pleasant pictures remained relatively stable across the two assessment tasks. Consequently, the reduction in Δvalence scores does not necessarily indicate a diminished response to pleasant stimuli but rather a shift in the perceived pleasantness of neutral images following task repetition. Moreover, such a pattern suggests a dissociation from the ΔLPP scores, which were increased (rather than diminished) at T 1 . Despite previous studies on savoring have found an increase in both valence and arousal scores after the task, a dissociation between subjective ratings and ERPs scores has been previously reported in the literature on emotional processing (Littel & Franken, 2007). In this specific case, lower valence ratings following the second assessment (T 1 ) may be due to either habituation to the stimuli or fatigue arising from the experimental procedure. These findings highlight the importance of integrating both subjective and physiological measures when evaluating the effects of savoring, as each capture distinct facets of emotional processing (Cuthbert et al., 2000b). Furthermore, during the savoring session, view-pleasant trials elicited significantly larger LPP relative to savor-pleasant trials at central and parietal electrodes, and to both savor-pleasant and view-neutral trials at frontal and frontocentral sites. Although some previous studies reported increased LPP amplitudes during savoring trials (Jackson et al., 2024; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021, 2024), the reversed pattern observed here may reflect the specific characteristics of the selected stimuli—namely, highly arousing IAPS pictures depicting people. Such stimuli are inherently engaging and motivationally salient, which may leave limited room for savoring to further enhance stimulus-driven emotional processing. This mechanism has also been reported for other emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal, which has been found to be less effective for high arousing stimuli (Langeslag & Surti, 2017). In addition, images depicting people (rather than scenes or animals) can be more challenging to savor, as their increased complexity and motivational salience (Britton et al., 2006; Ito & Cacioppo, 2000; Wilson & MacNamara, 2021) may hinder the immediate deployment of savoring strategies that require participants to redirect attentional resources inward, engaging in processes such as personal elaboration (Bryant, 1989). This attentional shift may reduce immediate perceptual engagement with the stimulus itself, thereby dampening the stimulus-locked LPP (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). Taken together, these factors suggest that, although savoring can enhance emotional experience more broadly, its effects on emotional elaboration may be constrained when the stimuli are already strongly engaging and when regulation demands draw resources away from perceptual processing. Instead, in the control passive viewing session, emotional modulation of the LPP emerged across both electrode pools and time windows, consistent with evidence that this component indexes the allocation of motivated attention (Bylsma et al., 2022; Lang & Bradley, 2010; Palomba et al., 1997; Pastor et al., 2008; Smith & Hollinger-Smith, 2015). Additionally, this line of research has a potential clinical application as deficits in positive emotional engagement and blunted neural responses to pleasant stimuli are consistently observed in depression and related conditions (e.g., Dell’Acqua et al., 2022; Klawohn et al., 2021; Kujawa et al., 2012; Moretta et al., 2021). Savoring interventions may be more beneficial in contexts where there is “more room to savor”, namely when baseline emotional engagement is relatively low. These results also suggest that mere exposure to emotional stimuli can enhance the activation of the appetitive system, potentially promoting greater allocation of attentional resources to these stimuli. To inform clinical applications, future research should systematically examine the conditions under which each of these strategies are effective, and the clinical populations that may benefit more from their application. Moreover, LPP assessment paradigms could be further employed to evaluate the effects of other interventions aimed at promoting positive affect (Craske et al., 2024), such as Behavioral Activation (Kanter et al., 2010) or the Positive Affect treatment (Craske et al., 2019). Given the limited research on the generalization of savoring, the present findings should be considered as an initial step toward clarifying the mechanisms underlying this strategy. This study has several strengths, including its rigorous methodological approach, incorporating both pre- and post-session assessments to account for individual differences in baseline emotional reactivity, as well as a control condition to disentangle savoring-specific effects from those attributable to repeated exposure. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample consisted exclusively of Italian white university students, predominantly enrolled in psychology programs, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Indeed, concepts related to emotion regulation and the use of specific strategies might be more familiar—and therefore potentially easier to apply—for this population. Furthermore, previous research has shown that savoring is applied differently across the lifespan, with slightly distinct savoring strategies typically selected by adolescents, young adults, and older adults (Marques-Pinto et al., 2020). Hence, future research should therefore examine the effects of savoring across different age groups to better assess the generalizability of these findings. Second, the present study constitutes a preliminary attempt to integrate psychophysiological assessment before and after an emotion regulation session to evaluate its effects. The inclusion of additional physiological indices (e.g., skin conductance, heart rate) during the assessment phases could provide a more comprehensive framework for examining the influence of savoring on emotional processing across multiple levels, ranging from autonomic activation to neural responses (Cuthbert et al., 2000b). Finally, it is relevant to acknowledge that emotion regulation is typically studied in laboratory settings using static visual stimuli, whereas real-world regulation unfolds in dynamic and multifaceted contexts, and evaluating the effectiveness of savoring in ecological settings requires different methodological approaches. Overall, these findings suggest that, among healthy young adults, savoring can be as effective as simple exposure in enhancing neural responses to pleasant stimuli. At the same time, the reversed pattern observed during the savoring session—with “view” trials eliciting larger LPP than “savor” trials—suggests that the effectiveness of savoring may be modulated by stimulus characteristics and the attentional demands inherent to the strategy. Identifying the conditions under which savoring, as well as passive exposure to emotional stimuli alone, effectively enhances emotional elaboration is therefore crucial for refining their clinical applications. Future research could focus on exploring how these tasks influence emotional processing in affective disorders and on understanding how the different processes involved influence the emergence, persistence, and treatment of such disorders. References Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software , 67 , 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Beauregard, M., Lévesque, J., & Bourgouin, P. (2001). Neural correlates of conscious self-regulation of emotion. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience , 21 (18), RC165. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-18-j0001.2001 Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) , 1 (3), 276–298. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 25 (1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 Britton, J. C., Taylor, S. F., Sudheimer, K. D., & Liberzon, I. (2006). Facial expressions and complex IAPS pictures: Common and differential networks. NeuroImage , 31 (2), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.050 Bryant, F. B. (2021). Current Progress and Future Directions for Theory and Research on Savoring. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771698 Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2017). Savoring: A New Model of Positive Experience . Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315088426 Bylsma, L. M., Tan, P. Z., Silk, J. S., Forbes, E. E., McMakin, D. L., Dahl, R. E., Ryan, N. D., & Ladouceur, C. D. (2022). The late positive potential during affective picture processing: Associations with daily life emotional functioning among adolescents with anxiety disorders. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 182 , 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.09.009 Cheng, Y., Peters, B. R., & MacNamara, A. (2023). Positive emotion up-regulation is resistant to working memory load: An electrocortical investigation of reappraisal and savoring. Psychophysiology , 60 (12), e14385. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14385 Colombo, D., Pavani, J.-B., Fernandez-Alvarez, J., Garcia-Palacios, A., & Botella, C. (2021). Savoring the present: The reciprocal influence between positive emotions and positive emotion regulation in everyday life. PLOS ONE , 16 (5), e0251561. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251561 Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N., & Lang, P. J. (2000a). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology , 52 (2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00044-7 Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N., & Lang, P. J. (2000b). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology , 52 (2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00044-7 Dell’Acqua, C., Brush, C. J., Burani, K., Santopetro, N. J., Klawohn, J., Messerotti Benvenuti, S., & Hajcak, G. (2022). Reduced electrocortical responses to pleasant pictures in depression: A brief report on time-domain and time-frequency delta analyses. Biological Psychology , 170 , 108302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108302 Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 134 (1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 Dennis, T. A., & Hajcak, G. (2009). The late positive potential: A neurophysiological marker for emotion regulation in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 50 (11), 1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02168.x Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41 (4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Foti, D., Hajcak, G., & Dien, J. (2009). Differentiating neural responses to emotional pictures: Evidence from temporal-spatial PCA. Psychophysiology , 46 (3), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00796.x Fuentes-Sánchez, N., Jaén, I., Escrig, M. A., Lucas, I., & Pastor, M. C. (2019). Cognitive reappraisal during unpleasant picture processing: Subjective self-report and peripheral physiology. Psychophysiology , 56 (8), e13372. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13372 Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The Neural Bases of Emotion Regulation: Reappraisal and Suppression of Negative Emotion. Biological Psychiatry , 63 (6), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.031 Gordon, P. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Implicit learning and generalization of the ‘mere exposure’ effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 45 (3), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.492 Hajcak, G., Dunning, J. P., & Foti, D. (2009). Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clinical Neurophysiology , 120 (3), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.028 Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance? & Significance! Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology , 57 (7), e13570. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13570 Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-Related Potentials, Emotion, and Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Developmental Neuropsychology , 35 (2), 129–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903526504 Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Fera, F., & Weinberger, D. R. (2003). Neocortical modulation of the amygdala response to fearful stimuli. Biological Psychiatry , 53 (6), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01786-9 Ito, T. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000). Electrophysiological Evidence of Implicit and Explicit Categorization Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 36 (6), 660–676. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1430 Jackson, L. E., Wilson, K. A., & MacNamara, A. (2024). Savoring mental imagery: Electrocortical effects and association with depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 179 , 104559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2024.104559 Kappenman, E. S., & Luck, S. J. (2016). Best Practices for Event-Related Potential Research in Clinical Populations. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , 1 (2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2015.11.007 Kennedy, H., & Montreuil, T. C. (2021). The Late Positive Potential as a Reliable Neural Marker of Cognitive Reappraisal in Children and Youth: A Brief Review of the Research Literature. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.608522 Kim, S. H., & Hamann, S. (2007). Neural Correlates of Positive and Negative Emotion Regulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 (5), 776–798. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.776 Klawohn, J., Burani, K., Bruchnak, A., Santopetro, N., & Hajcak, G. (2021). Reduced neural response to reward and pleasant pictures independently relate to depression. Psychological Medicine , 51 (5), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719003659 Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software , 82 , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology , 84 (3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.10.007 Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical Manual and Affective Ratings . NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention. Langeslag, S. J. E., & Surti, K. (2017). The effect of arousal on regulation of negative emotions using cognitive reappraisal: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology , 118 , 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.05.012 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. The American Psychologist , 46 (8), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.46.8.819 Leite, J., Carvalho, S., Galdo-Alvarez, S., Alves, J., Sampaio, A., & Gonçalves, Ó. F. (2012). Affective picture modulation: Valence, arousal, attention allocation and motivational significance. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 83 (3), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.005 Lewis, M. D., & Stieben, J. (2004). Emotion Regulation in the Brain: Conceptual Issues and Directions for Developmental Research. Child Development , 75 (2), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00680.x Littel, M., & Franken, I. H. A. (2007). The effects of prolonged abstinence on the processing of smoking cues: An ERP study among smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) , 21 (8), 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881107078494 Livingstone, K. M., & Srivastava, S. (2012). Up-regulating positive emotions in everyday life: Strategies, individual differences, and associations with positive emotion and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality , 46 (5), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.05.009 Luck, S. (2014). An Introduction to Event-related Potential Technique, second edition . Mit Press. MacNamara, A., Joyner, K., & Klawohn, J. (2022). Event-related potential studies of emotion regulation: A review of recent progress and future directions. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 176 , 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.03.008 Marques-Pinto, A., Oliveira, S., Santos, A., Camacho, C., Silva, D. P., & Pereira, M. S. (2020). Does Our Age Affect the Way we Live? A Study on Savoring Strategies Across the Life Span. Journal of Happiness Studies , 21 (4), 1509–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00136-4 McFarland, D. J., Parvaz, M. A., Sarnacki, W. A., Goldstein, R. Z., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2017). Prediction of Subjective Ratings of Emotional Pictures by EEG Features. Journal of Neural Engineering , 14 (1), 016009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/14/1/016009 Moodie, C. A., Suri, G., Goerlitz, D. S., Mateen, M. A., Sheppes, G., McRae, K., Lakhan-Pal, S., Thiruchselvam, R., & Gross, J. J. (2020). The neural bases of cognitive emotion regulation: The roles of strategy and intensity. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience , 20 (2), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00775-8 Moran, T. P., Jendrusina, A. A., & Moser, J. S. (2013). The psychometric properties of the late positive potential during emotion processing and regulation. Brain Research , 1516 , 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2013.04.018 Moretta, T., Dal Bò, E., Dell’Acqua, C., Messerotti Benvenuti, S., & Palomba, D. (2021). Disentangling emotional processing in dysphoria: An ERP and cardiac deceleration study. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 147 , 103985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103985 Moretta, T., & Messerotti Benvenuti, S. (2023). Familial risk for depression is associated with reduced P300 and late positive potential to affective stimuli and prolonged cardiac deceleration to unpleasant stimuli. Scientific Reports , 13 (1), 6432. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33534-z Moser, J. S., Hartwig, R., Moran, T. P., Jendrusina, A. A., & Kross, E. (2014). Neural markers of positive reappraisal and their associations with trait reappraisal and worry. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 123 (1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035817 Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 9 (5), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010 Opialla, S., Lutz, J., Scherpiet, S., Hittmeyer, A., Jäncke, L., Rufer, M., Grosse Holtforth, M., Herwig, U., & Brühl, A. B. (2015). Neural circuits of emotion regulation: A comparison of mindfulness-based and cognitive reappraisal strategies. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience , 265 (1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-014-0510-z Palomba, D., Angrilli, A., & Mini, A. (1997). Visual evoked potentials, heart rate responses and memory to emotional pictorial stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 27 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(97)00751-4 Pastor, M. C., Bradley, M. M., Löw, A., Versace, F., Moltó, J., & Lang, P. J. (2008). Affective picture perception: Emotion, context, and the late positive potential. Brain Research , 1189 , 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.072 Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Positive interventions: An emotion regulation perspective. Psychological Bulletin , 141 (3), 655–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038648 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Https://www.R-project.org/ (2023). Sandre, A., Bagot, R. C., & Weinberg, A. (2019). Blunted neural response to appetitive images prospectively predicts symptoms of depression, and not anxiety, during the transition to university. Biological Psychology , 145 , 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.04.001 Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Ito, T., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective picture processing: The late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology , 37 (2), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3720257 Schupp, H. T., Flaisch, T., Stockburger, J., & Junghöfer, M. (2006). Emotion and attention: Event-related brain potential studies. In S. Anders, G. Ende, M. Junghofer, J. Kissler, & D. Wildgruber (Eds), Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 156, pp. 31–51). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56002-9 Schupp, H. T., Junghöfer, M., Weike, A. I., & Hamm, A. O. (2003). Attention and emotion: An ERP analysis of facilitated emotional stimulus processing. Neuroreport , 14 (8), 1107–1110. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200306110-00002 Schupp, H. T., Ohman, A., Junghöfer, M., Weike, A. I., Stockburger, J., & Hamm, A. O. (2004). The facilitated processing of threatening faces: An ERP analysis. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) , 4 (2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.189 Shafir, R., Schwartz, N., Blechert, J., & Sheppes, G. (2015). Emotional intensity influences pre-implementation and implementation of distraction and reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 10 (10), 1329–1337. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv022 Shapiro, S. & Wilk, M. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika , 52 (3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 Smith, J. L., & Hollinger-Smith, L. (2015). Savoring, resilience, and psychological well-being in older adults. Aging & Mental Health , 19 (3), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.986647 Speed, B. C., Nelson, B. D., Perlman, G., Klein, D. N., Kotov, R., & Hajcak, G. (2015). Personality and emotional processing: A relationship between extraversion and the late positive potential in adolescence. Psychophysiology , 52 (8), 1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12436 Tadel, F., Baillet, S., Mosher, J. C., Pantazis, D., & Leahy, R. M. (2011). Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience , 2011 (1), 879716. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/879716 Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 59 (2–3), 25–52, 250–283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166137 Weinberg, A., Perlman, G., Kotov, R., & Hajcak, G. (2016). Depression and reduced neural response to emotional images: Distinction from anxiety, and importance of symptom dimensions and age of onset. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 125 (1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000118 Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin , 1 (6), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968 Wilson, K. A., & MacNamara, A. (2021). Savor the moment: Willful increase in positive emotion and the persistence of this effect across time. Psychophysiology , 58 (3), e13754. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13754 Wilson, K. A., & MacNamara, A. (2024). Generalization of savoring to novel positive stimuli. Psychophysiology , 61 (6), e14537. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14537 Acknowledgements We acknowledge financial support under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU– Project Number: P20223PTH4, adopted by the Italian Ministry of Ministry of University and Research (MUR). Declaration of interests The authors declare they have no known competing financial or personal interests. Table 1. ANOVA summary from the two linear mixed-effects models predicting Δsubjective valence and arousal ratings. SS df MS F p Δ Valence model Time 44.08 1 44.08 9.89 < .01** Condition .64 1 .64 .14 .70 Time × Condition 1.01 1 1.02 .22 .63 Δ Arousal model Time 12.90 1 12.90 3.13 .07 Condition 1.46 1 1.46 0.35 .55 Time × Condition 5.12 1 5.12 1.24 .26 Notes: Δvalence = valence pleasant – valence neutral; Δarousal = arousal pleasant – arousal neutral. Sum of squares (SS), Mean Squares (MS), F-values, and p-values are reported. Significant effects are highlighted in bold, while asterisks denote significance level (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Table 2. ANOVA summary from the two linear mixed-effects models predicting ΔLPP scores at parietal and central electrodes (P3, PZ, P4, C3, CZ, C4). SS df MS F p Δ LPP (300 -1000 ms) Time 304.93 1 304.93 76.42 < .01*** Condition 8.99 1 8.99 2.25 .13 Time × Condition 1.24 1 1.24 .31 .57 Δ LPP (1000 – 1600 ms) Time 358.97 1 358.97 93.00 < .01*** Condition 5.08 1 5.08 1.31 .25 Time × Condition 6.16 1 6.16 1.59 .20 Notes: Separate models were computed for the ΔLPP extracted in the early (300–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) time windows. Sum of squares (SS), Mean Squares (MS), F-values, and p-values are reported. Significant effects are shown in bold, with asterisks indicating levels of statistical significance (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Table 3. ANOVA summary from the two linear mixed-effects models predicting ΔLPP scores at frontocentral and frontal electrodes (FC1, FC2, FC5, FC6, F3, FZ, F4). SS df MS F p Δ LPP (600 -1000 ms) Time 479.95 1 479.95 104.08 < .01*** Condition 5.02 1 5.02 1.08 .30 Time × Condition .26 1 .26 .05 .81 Δ LPP (1000 – 1600 ms) Time 358.97 1 358.97 93.00 < .01*** Condition 5.08 1 5.08 1.31 .25 Time × Condition 6.16 1 6.16 1.59 .20 Notes: Separate models were computed for the ΔLPP extracted in the early (600–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) time windows. Sum of squares (SS), Mean Squares (MS), F-values, and p-values are reported. Significant effects are shown in bold, with asterisks indicating levels of statistical significance (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Figure 1. Schematic illustration of a trial of the LPP assessment task. ITI = inter trial interval. Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the two experimental conditions, namely the savoring (Panel a) and the control passive viewing (Panel b). Figure 3. Predicted values of Δvalence scores (valence pleasant – valence neutral) during the assessment pre-session (T 0 ) and the assessment post-session (T 1 ). Error bars indicate model-derived Standard Errors (SE) of the estimated means. Square brackets indicate statistically significant pairwise comparisons, and asterisks denote significance levels (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Figure 4. Grand-average waveforms of the LPP at parietal and central electrodes poll (P3, PZ, P4, C3, CZ, C4) during the two assessment phases (T 0 and T 1 ) in the savoring ( Panel A ) and control passive viewing ( Panel B ) groups. Grey and green shaded areas mark the early (300–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) LPP windows, respectively. ( Panel C ) Predicted ΔLPP values for the early (300–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) LPP scoring windows. Error bars indicate the model-derived Standard Errors (SE) of the estimated means. Square brackets indicate statistically significant pairwise comparisons, and asterisks denote significance levels (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Figure 5. Grand-average waveforms of the LPP at frontocentral and frontal electrodes poll (FC1, FC2, FC5, FC6, F3, FZ, F4) during the two assessment phases (T 0 and T 1 ) for savoring ( Panel A ) and control passive viewing ( Panel B ) groups. Grey and green shaded areas mark the early (600–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) LPP windows, respectively. ( Panel C ) Predicted ΔLPP values for the early (300–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) LPP scoring windows. Error bars indicate the model-derived Standard Errors (SE). Square brackets indicate statistically significant pairwise comparisons, and asterisks denote significance levels (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Figure 6. Grand-average waveforms of the LPP at parietal and central electrodes (P3, PZ, P4, C3, CZ, C4; left panel) and the frontocentral and frontal electrodes (FC1, FC2, FC5, FC6, F3, FZ, F4; right panel) during the savoring session. Grey and green shading indicate early (200–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) LPP windows. Predicted LPP values for each window are also shown, with error bars representing model-derived Standard Errors (SE). Square brackets mark significant pairwise comparisons (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Figure 7. Grand-average waveforms of the LPP at parietal and central electrodes (C3, CZ, C4, P3, PZ, P4; left panel) and the frontocentral and frontal electrodes (FC1, FC2, FC5, FC6, F3, FZ, F4; right panel) during the control passive viewing session. Grey and green shading indicate early (200–1000 ms) and late (1000–1600 ms) time windows. Predicted LPP values for each window are also shown, with error bars representing model-derived Standard Errors (SE). Square brackets mark significant pairwise comparisons (* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001). Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 03 January 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Authors Affiliations Valentina Mologni 0009-0004-7275-0131 [email protected] Universita degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale View all articles by this author Carola Dell'Acqua 0000-0002-8394-4554 Universita degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale View all articles by this author Letizia Soliman Universita degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale View all articles by this author Igor Marchetti Universita degli Studi di Firenze Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute View all articles by this author Paolo Bernardis Universita degli Studi di Trieste Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita View all articles by this author Romina Angeleri Universita degli Studi eCampus View all articles by this author Simone Messerotti Benvenuti 0000-0002-1430-6807 Universita degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 214 views 101 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Valentina Mologni, Carola Dell'Acqua, Letizia Soliman, et al. SAVOR THE NEW? A SINGLE SESSION OF SAVORING DOES NOT ENHANCE LPP TO PLEASANT IMAGES BEYOND PASSIVE VIEWING. Authorea . 03 January 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176743456.69166871/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176743456.69166871/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe1a1f4ed5106eb',t:'MTc3OTE3ODMwNA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();