Neural Correlate of the Impact of Dream Recall on

Emotional Processing
Carlo Lai, Giada Lucarelli, Gaia Romana Pellicano, Giuseppe Massaro, and
Daniela Altavilla
Sapienza University of Rome
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Paola Aceto
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Università Cattolica
del Sacro Cuore

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dream recall on the
neurophysiological correlates of emotional processing. The hypothesis was that
dream recall will produce an increased activation of fronto-limbic areas during an
emotional task. Thirty-seven women were recruited and randomly assigned to two
groups. Both groups were exposed to a visual task with emotional images (positive vs.
negative) presented in two stages (T0 and T1). Between T0 and T1, in the
experimental group, women were asked to recall and report a dream; whereas, in the
control group, they were asked to report their work experiences. Electroencephalog-
raphy data were continuously recorded in each participant, except during the
personal report session. Event-related potential analyses showed an interaction effect
of Time (T0 vs. T1) ⫻ Condition (positive vs. negative) ⫻ Group (experimental vs.
control) in temporo-parietal montage at P100; and Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻
Group in frontal montage from 200 to 1,000 ms. Standardized low resolution
electromagnetic tomography results showed an increased activation of the fronto-
limbic areas and a decreased activation of the anterior middle frontal gyrus and
temporo-parietal junction at T1 compared with T0 in the experimental group.
Conversely, in the control group, a decreased activation in limbic areas was found.
Dream recall was associated with an increased intensity of the limbic and temporal
circuits during emotional exposition, suggesting that dream recall seems to favor an
emotional response.

Keywords: dream recall, sLORETA, electroencephalography, emotional processing

Carlo Lai, Giada Lucarelli, Gaia Romana Pellicano, Giuseppe Massaro, and Daniela Altavilla,
Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome; Paola Aceto,
Department of Anesthesia, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Univer-
sitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, and Institute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Università
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carlo Lai, Department of Dynamic
and Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via degli Apuli, 1, 00185 Rome, Italy. E-mail:
carlo.lai@uniroma1.it

40

Dreaming
© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, 40 –56
1053-0797/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/drm0000096
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 41

Previous studies investigating the characteristics of dreams suggested that

dreams are characterized by vivid sensorimotor images, experienced as sleep
reality, despite the unlikelihood of time and space in which they occur. Emotions
dominate these experiences of sleep and could be so intense to cause awakening
(Hobson, Pace-Schott, & Stickgold, 2000).
Many psychotherapists reported to use common “dream recall” in their clinical
settings. At present, dream recall is considered as an useful instrument in different
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

types of psychotherapy as psychodynamic, psychoanalytic, imagery rehearsal, and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

rescripting therapy (Berlin, Means, & Edinger, 2010; Nappi, Drummond, Thorp, &
McQuaid, 2010; Rhudy et al., 2010; Schredl, Bohusch, Kahl, Mader, & Somesan,
2000).
The dream recall technique is considered as an informative instrument. In
particular, it provides information about the presence of conflict or issue, impend-
ing crisis, affective state, defense, or resistance mechanisms and it is able to provide
elements for psychodynamic diagnosis, for the assessment of the representation of
the patient’s self, relational, and transference aspects; problem solving; and
decision-making processes (Glucksman, 2001). Furthermore, the use of dream
recall makes possible the evaluation of changes during the treatment by analyzing
the content of dreams reported by the patient (Glucksman & Kramer, 2004).
Emotion is a salient aspect of dreams: some authors observed that most
emotional experiences occur during REM sleep like a form of conscious recall of
life. Positive and negative emotions seem to occur mainly balanced, but with
significant differences among subjects. Furthermore, the typologies of emotions
showed variations in the intensity (Fosse, Stickgold, & Hobson, 2001).
Previous studies showed that the analysis of the emotions contained in dreams
could be helpful for a better understanding of the pathophysiology complexity of
nightmares or disturbed dreaming and their role in the prediction of the onset of
psychopathology, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, affective distress or per-
sonality disorders (Levin, Fireman, Spendlove, & Pope, 2011; Levin & Nielsen,
2007; Semiz, Basoglu, Ebrinc, & Cetin, 2008).
Despite dream recall being widely used in clinical practice, very few studies
have been conducted on its effect on the neurobiological correlate of emotional
processing. Several studies tried to identify the possible circuit underlying dream
recall. The brain structures that seemed mostly involved in dreaming during sleep
and during the dream recall were the temporo-parietal junction and medial
prefrontal cortex (Eichenlaub, Bertrand, Morlet, & Ruby, 2014), and those data
were confirmed also by a lesion study (De Gennaro, Marzano, Cipolli, & Ferrara,
2012).
Dream recall was also studied in the state where the subject did not fall asleep
spontaneously, but via anesthesia. The subjects who were able to recall a dream
after anesthesia showed a high responsiveness degree of auditory primary cortex
and lower values of intraoperative cortisol compared with the patients without
dream recall (Aceto et al., 2007, 2013). Despite the studies conducted on dream
recall, the neurobiological correlates of emotional processing after dream recall are
not yet broadly investigated.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dream recall on the
neurophysiological correlates of emotional processing. The hypothesis was that
 42 LAI ET AL.

dream recall will produce an increased activation of temporo-parietal junction and

fronto-limbic areas during an emotional task.

Materials and Method

Participants
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Fifty-two volunteer women aged between 18 and 35 years, in good health and
all right-handers, took part in the study. Exclusion criteria were the presence of
neurobiological injury, psychiatric disorders or psychotropic medication. In this
study, only female participants were included, given the presence of substantial sex
differences in dream recall (in particular, for nightmares; Schredl & Reinhard,
2011).
The protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Department of
Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University, Rome. All of the partici-
pants signed an informed consent to participate in the study.

Psychological Assessment

Socioemotional ability was measured through the Toronto Alexithymia Scale

(TAS-20) and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to verify that the two groups of
subjects did not differ for psychological parameters.
For the alexithymia assessment, the TAS-20 (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .81; Bagby,
Taylor, & Parker, 1994) was administered. It is a self-report questionnaire with 20
items; the total alexithymia score was obtained by the sum of three factors: Factor
1 (Difficulty to Identify Feelings), Factor 2 (Difficulty to Describing Feelings), and
Factor 3 (Externally Oriented Thinking). The participants rated their agreement
with each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
agree).
The IRI (Davis, 1980) was administered to assess the level of empathy. It is a
self-report questionnaire with 28 items; the total score was obtained by the sum of
four factors: Perspective-Taking scale (PT), Fantasy scale (FS), Empathic Concern
scale (EC), and Personal Distress scale (PD). The participants rated their agree-
ment with each item on a 5-point scale ranging from A (Does not describe me well)
to E (Describes me very well).
The psychological dimension of empathy was chosen because previous studies
reported a significant correlation between the rated empathy and the frequency of
dream occurrence (Kroth et al., 2003) and the construct of alexithymia was used for
the general difficulty of alexithymic individuals in retrieving (recalling) their
dreams, as previously reported by other studies (De Gennaro et al., 2003).

Stimuli

A total of 180 pictures were chosen: 60 positive (POS), such as couples in

interaction, children, interaction with animals, and scenes of everyday life; 60
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 43

negative (NG), such as war scenes and people involved in environmental disasters;
and 60 neutral (Ne), common objects. The positive and negative pictures were
selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, &
Cuthbert, 2008), and the neutral pictures were chosen on the web according to
the above criteria. The selected pictures had the following mean IAPS rating: the
valence mean rating was 7.59 ⫾ 1.46 for the positive pictures and 2.36 ⫾ 1.45 for the
negative ones; the arousal mean rating was 4.67 ⫾ 2.32 for the positive pictures and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

5.68 ⫾ 2.17 for the negative ones. Neutral images have been inserted in order to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

avoid a possible habituation to the emotional stimuli.

Each image has been edited by Photoshop, with a size of 400 ⫻ 600 pixels and
rendered in black and white because the colors could have been distracting
elements (Lai, Altavilla, Ronconi, & Aceto, 2016).

Procedure

Before starting the experimental procedure, the participants were randomly

assigned to the experimental group (dream recall) or control group (work
experience report) by the experimenter through a spreadsheet. The group assign-
ment was kept hidden form the participants until the end of the first picture
presentation (T0).
Participants were seated at a viewing distance of 80 cm from a PC monitor (27
cm, 75 Hz, 1,024 ⫻ 768 pixels). The visual task was presented from E-Prime
software (v. 2.0.8.90; Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA) and it began with
the following instructions: “Now the images will be presented on the screen. Please,
pay attention to images trying to make less movements as possible. Press any key
when you are ready.”
Each trial started with a fixation cross displayed for 1,000 ms, followed by the
picture (30 POS vs. 30 NG vs. 30 Ne) presented for 2,000 ms. During the first time
(T0) 90 pictures were presented in random order. The duration of T0 presentation
was about 270 s.
When the presentation of the pictures at T0 ended, the following instructions
were given to the participant: “Wait for the experimenter who will indicate how to
continue the experiment.” Successively, the experimenter came in, sat in the room,
and asked the participants to report their stories, based on the assigned group. The
participants assigned to the experimental group were asked to report a dream,
while those who were assigned to the control group were asked to report their
personal work experiences. The report of personal work experiences was chosen as
control because permitted to access to mnemonic processes, as for the dream recall,
but, the memories of the work events were about episodes truly happened in the
real life of the participants and not in the oneiric experience, as for the dream recall.
The recounting of work experiences allowed us to maintain processes of memory
activation and the narrative organization similar to those required by the dream
recall. The session of personal report (dream or work experience) lasted 3 min and
this amount of time has been kept stable for all the participants. Based on a
previous pilot trial, this amount of time has been considered as suitable to recall and
report personal experiences.
 44 LAI ET AL.

When the participant ended the personal recall report, the experimenter left
the room and immediately the second visual emotional task (T1) started. There was
no time between the end of the personal recall session and the beginning of the
presentation of the T1 picture in order to avoid any possible interference during
the subsequent visual task. As it did for the T0, the T1 visual task began with the
following instructions: “Now the images will be presented on the screen. Please, pay
attention to images trying to make less movements as possible. Press any key when
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

you are ready.” During T1, 90 pictures (30 POS vs. 30 NG vs. 30 Ne) were
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

presented in random order (Figure 1), and the duration of presentation was 270 s.
The pictures were not repeated among the T0 and T1 presentations, and in
order to maintain equal IAPS valence and arousal ratings among the images of the
two presentations, the 180 images were been randomly assigned to the first and
second presentation, controlling the distribution of condition (30 POS vs. 30 NG vs.
30 Ne for each presentation).
The electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded only during the
presentation of the pictures at T0 and T1, and not during the personal report
session.
The total duration of the experimental task was about 12 min.
In the experimental condition, if the participant did not immediately under-
stand the instructions of the experimenter, further information was provided by the
experimenter. In particular, the subject was instructed that it was possible to report
a dream of the night before, a recurring dream, or an old dream of which she could
remember a lot of details.
EEG recording and analysis. The EEG data were recorded continuously at
250 Hz using Net Station 4.4.2 and a 256 Hydrocel Geodesic Sensor Net (Eugene,
OR), with an impedance kept below 50 k⍀ and with the reference at Cz. The EEG
data of each subject were digitally filtered (30 Hz low-pass) offline, in order to
attenuate low-frequency noise without introducing meaningful distortion of the
waveforms (Tanner, Morgan-Short, & Luck, 2015). The EEG data of each subject
were segmented into epochs of 100 ms before the presentation of the stimulus to

Figure 1. Procedure of the experimental task (total duration about 12 min): a total of 90 emotional
images (30 positive, 30 negative, and 30 neutral) were shown in a random order to the participant (T0;
duration about 270 s). After T0, there was the personal recall session (duration of 3 min). In this session,
the experimental group was asked to recall a dream and the control group was asked to report a work
experience. After the personal report session, a total of new 90 images (30 positive, 30 negative, and 30
neutral) were shown in a random order to the participant (T1; duration about 270 s).
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 45

1,000 ms after stimulus onset, for the three conditions (POS, NG, and NE). Net
Station artifacts detection setting was set to 200 ␮V for all electrodes in order to
eliminate the noisy channels, 140 ␮V in order to identify the eyeblinks, and 100 ␮V
revealing the eye movements (Electrical Geodesic, Eugene, OR; Picton et al.,
2000). The segments marked with an incorrect response, an eyeblink, an eye
movement, or more than 15 noisy channels were excluded. Baseline correction of
⫺100 ms before the onset of the stimulus was applied.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

After the artifacts detection, 15 participants were excluded for too many
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

artifacts. The final sample consisted of 37 subjects: 21 for the experimental group
and 16 for the control group.
According to the study objectives, data analysis on the event-related potential
(ERP) components was performed by visual inspection and the following time
windows were selected: the time windows from 60 to 160 ms for P100 (P1), from 160
to 230 ms for N100 (N1), from 230 to 320 ms for P200 (P2), from 320 to 400 ms for
N300 (N3), from 400 to 600 ms (LC1), from 600 to 800 ms (LC2), and from 800 to
1,000 ms (LC3) for late components were selected.
The ERP data of the peak amplitude and latency of P1 in both groups were
extracted on occipital electrodes (left: 124 and right: 159) and temporo-parietal
montages (left: 72, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 97 and right: 161, 162, 163, 171, 173, 179, 180);
the data of the peak amplitude and latency of the N1 were extracted on
temporo-parietal montages; the data of the mean amplitude of the P2, N3, LC1,
LC2, and LC3 were extracted on the temporo-parietal and frontal (left: 28, 36, 40,
41, 47, 49, and right: 5, 12, 13, 214, 223, 224) montages.
Standardized low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) data.
To identify the locations of the neural generators of ERP components, the default
sLORETA; Pascual-Marqui, Esslen, Kochi, & Lehmann, 2002) inverse model of
the GeoSource software (Version_2.0; EGI, Eugene, OR), with the Sun-Stok
4-Shell Sphere head model (Eugene, OR) and Tikhonov 1 ⫻ 10⫺2 regularization
was used. sLORETA is based upon the assumption of the standardization of the
current density which implies that not only the variance of the noise in the EEG
measurements is taken into account but also the biological variance in the actual
signal is considered (Pascual-Marqui et al., 2002). This biological variance is taken
as independent as uniformly distributed across the brain resulting in a linear
imaging localization technique having exact zero-localization error (Jatoi, Kamel,
Malik, Faye, & Begum, 2014).
Source locations were derived from the probabilistic map of the MNI305
average (Montreal Neurological Institute 305 subjects). Based on the probabilistic
map, gray matter volume was parcellated into 7-mm voxels; each voxel served as a
source location with three orthogonal orientation vectors. This resulted in a total of
2,447 source triplets whose anatomical labels were estimated using a Talairach
daemon (Cecchini, Aceto, Altavilla, Palumbo, & Lai, 2013; Cecchini, Iannoni,
Pandolfo, Aceto, & Lai, 2015; Lai et al., 2017, 2018; Lancaster et al., 2000; Luciani
et al., 2014; Massaro et al., 2018).
Referring to the main literature on the neurobiological correlates of dreaming
recall (Aceto et al., 2007, 2013; Eichenlaub, Nicolas, et al., 2014) three regions of
interest (ROIs), corresponding to specific combinations of Brodmann areas (BAs),
have been defined. Specifically, the frontal cortex ROI (F) included BAs 10, 11, and
46; the temporal cortex ROI (T) included BAs 20, 21, 22, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 43; and
 46 LAI ET AL.

the limbic ROI (L) included BAs amygdala, hippocampus, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 36.
The mean intensity (nA) of each left (l) and right (r) BAs in each condition for each
ERP component was extracted.

Statistical Analyses
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Paired t tests between the two groups were performed in order to evaluate the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

homogeneity of the socioemotional ability (TAS-20 and IRI).

For the ERP data, the 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 2 analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with
group (experimental vs. control) as the between-subjects factor and time (T0 vs. T1),
condition (positive vs. negative vs. neutral), and hemisphere (left vs. right) as
within-subjects factors on the peak amplitude and latency of P1 on the occipital and
temporo-parietal montages, on the peak amplitude and latency of the N1 on the
temporo-parietal montages, and on the mean amplitude of the P2, N3, LC1, LC2, and
LC3 on the temporo-parietal and frontal montages were performed. Following the
hypothesis, only the results involving the interaction with group (post hoc comparisons
were considered significant with a p value lower than 0.01) have been discussed.
For the sLORETA data, basic single comparisons (Fisher’s F) have been
performed in two different analyses: between groups (experimental and control) at T0
and T1 on each left and right BA intensity and within group (experimental and control)
between T0 and T1 on each left and right BA intensity. Bonferroni corrections were
applied for the comparisons of each ROI. The significance threshold for the 0.05 p
value was set from 0.003 (for temporal ROI, where we identified 8 BAs ⫻ 2
hemispheres ⫽ 16 comparisons: 0.05/16 ⫽ 0.003) to 0.008 (for frontal ROI, where we
identified 3 BAs ⫻ 2 hemispheres ⫽ 6 comparisons: 0.05/6 ⫽ 0.008).

Results

Behavioral Comparisons

No significant differences were observed for the socioemotional ability be-

tween the two groups (Table 1).

Table 1
Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of the Test Scores for Alexithymia (TAS-20) and Empathy (IRI) of
the Experimental and Control Groups
Experimental group Control group
Psychological variables Mean SD Mean SD F(1, 35) p

TAS-20-F1: Difficulty to Identify Feelings 15.3 5.8 14.1 4.5 0.44 .51
TAS-20-F2: Difficulty to Describing Feelings 13.7 5.4 11.2 4.2 2.39 .13
TAS-20-F3: Externally-Oriented Thinking 15.3 4.5 15.6 3.5 0.04 .84
TAS-20 total 44.3 13.0 40.9 9.9 0.76 .39
IRI-PT: Perspective-Taking scale 19.9 3.9 18.2 4.7 1.37 .25
IRI-FS: Fantasy scale 18.0 3.5 16.7 4.8 0.90 .35
IRI-EC: Empathic Concern scale 21.0 3.7 20.0 4.0 0.67 .42
IRI-PD: Personal Distress scale 11.9 4.6 11.8 4.8 0.004 .95
IRI total 70.9 8.9 66.7 13.5 1.24 .27
Note. TAS-20 ⫽ Toronto Alexithymia Scale; IRI ⫽ Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 47

ERPs

ANOVAs for Group (experimental vs. control) ⫻ Time (T0 vs. T1) ⫻
Condition (positive vs. negative vs. neutral) ⫻ Hemisphere (left vs. right) were
performed on amplitude and latency on the occipital, temporo-parietal, and frontal
montages in each component (P1, N1, P2, N3, LC1, LC2, LC3; Table 2).
As regards the amplitude, a main effect of Time (T1 ⬎ T0) was found in the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

temporo-parietal (N1; N3; LC1), and frontal (LC1; LC2; LC3) montages; a main
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

effect of condition was found in the temporo-parietal (P2: neutral ⬍ positive

and negative), and frontal (P2 and N3: positive ⬎ negative) montages; a main
effect of hemisphere was found in the occipital (P1: right ⬎ left) and
temporo-parietal (from P1 to LC3: right ⬎ left) montages. The following
interaction effects were found: Time ⫻ Hemisphere in the occipital (P1),
temporo-parietal (P1; N1; P2; N3; LC1; LC2; LC3), and frontal (P2; N3; LC1;
LC2; LC3) montages; Condition ⫻ Hemisphere in the temporo-parietal (LC1)
and frontal (LC2; LC3) montages; Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Group in the
temporo-parietal (P1) montage; Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group in the
frontal (P2; N3; LC1; LC2; LC3) montage; Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere in
the frontal (P2; N3; LC1; LC2; LC3) montage; and Time ⫻ Condition ⫻
Hemisphere ⫻ Group in the frontal (LC2) montage (Figure 2).
There were three interactions involving the group factor (Time ⫻ Condition ⫻
Group in temporo-parietal (P1) montage; Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group in
frontal (P2; N3; LC1; LC2; LC3) montage; Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻
Group in frontal (LC2) montage). These interactions did not show significant post
hoc comparisons between the two groups. However, there was a significant
different trend of amplitude between T0 and T1 in the experimental group
compared with the control group.
On the latency, the following main effects were found: time in the occipital (P1:
T1 ⬎ T0) montage; condition in the occipital (P1: negative ⬍ neutral), and
temporo-parietal (P1: positive ⬎ negative) montages; a main effect of hemisphere
was found in the occipital (P1: right ⬎ left) montage.

sLORETA

Between-groups analysis at T0 and T1 did not show any significant differences.

For within-group analysis, as shown in Table 3, in the experimental group,
between T0 and T1 an early and stable increased activation (from P1 to LC3) on the
limbic ROI (left and right amygdala, hippocampus BA27, BA28, BA34, BA35,
BA36), on the temporal ROI (BA20, BA38), and on the frontal ROI (BA11) and
a decreased activation of the frontal (left BA46) and temporal (BA42, BA43) ROIs
were observed for positive and negative stimuli.
In the control group, the trend of the activations between T0 and T1 was
similar to that of the experimental group, except for the limbic ROI (left and right
amygdala, hippocampus BA27, BA28, BA34, BA35, BA36) where the trend was
opposite, showing a decreased activation, particularly in response to the positive
stimuli.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

48

Table 2
Analyses of Variance and Partial Eta Squared Effect (␩2) Group (Experimental [Exp] vs. Control [Ctrl]) per Time (T0 vs. T1) per Condition (Positive [POS] vs.
Negative [NEG] vs. Neutral [Ne]) per Hemisphere (Left vs. Right) on Amplitude and Latency on Event-Related Potential Components (P1, N1, P2, N3, LC1, LC2,
LC3) on Occipital, Temporo-Parietal, and Frontal Montages
Component Montage Post hoc

P1 Occipital
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 10.10; p ⫽ .003; ␩2 ⫽ .22
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 6.57; p ⫽ .015; ␩2 ⫽ .16
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.44; p ⫽ .042; ␩2 ⫽ .11
Condition F(2, 70) ⫽ 6.29; p ⫽ .003; ␩2 ⫽ .15
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 6.14; p ⫽ .018; ␩2 ⫽ .15
Temporo-parietal
Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 6.50; p ⫽ .015; ␩2 ⫽ .16
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.24; p ⫽ .047; ␩2 ⫽ .11 Ctrl group T0 Ne ⬍ Ctrl group T1 POS; p ⫽ .001
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.19; p ⫽ .024; ␩2 ⫽ .10 Ctrl group T0 Ne ⬍ Ctrl group T1 NG; p ⫽ .005
Condition F(2, 70) ⫽ 5.34 Ctrl group T0 Ne ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne; p ⫽ .003
p ⫽ .007; ␩2 ⫽ .13
N1 Temporo-parietal
Time, F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.82; p ⫽ .035; ␩2 ⫽ .12
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 5.04; p ⫽ .031; ␩2 ⫽ .13
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 5.46 p ⫽ .025; ␩2 ⫽ .13
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 13.15; p ⫽ .0009; ␩2 ⫽ .27
P2 Temporo-parietal
Condition F(2, 70) ⫽ 4.92; p ⫽ .010; ␩2 ⫽ .12
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 11.31; p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .24
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 14.60; p ⫽ .0005; ␩2 ⫽ .29
Frontal
Condition F(2, 70) ⫽ 4.11; p ⫽ .021; ␩2 ⫽ .10 Ctrl group NG right ⬍ Ctrl group POS left; p ⫽ .048
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 31.18; p ⫽ .000001; ␩2 ⫽ .51 Exp group NG left ⬍ Exp group POS left; p ⫽ .0004
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.49; p ⫽ .036; ␩2 ⫽ .09 Exp group Ne right ⬍ Exp group POS left; p ⫽ .014
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 21.56; p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .17
N3 Temporo-parietal
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 5.09; p ⫽ .030; ␩2 ⫽ .13
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 13.41; p ⫽ .0008; ␩2 ⫽ .28
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 19.59; p ⫽ .00009; ␩2 ⫽ .36
Frontal
Condition F(2, 70) ⫽ 6.89; p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .16
LAI ET AL.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2 (continued)
Component Montage Post hoc
2
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 32.59; p ⫽ .000002; ␩ ⫽ .48 Exp group NG left ⬍ Exp group POS left; p ⫽ .00004
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.88; p ⫽ .025; ␩2 ⫽ .10 Exp group NG left ⬍ Exp group POS right; p ⫽ .004
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 5.87; p ⫽ .004; ␩2 ⫽ .14
LC1 Temporo-parietal
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.52; p ⫽ .041; ␩2 ⫽ .11
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 15.73; p ⫽ .0003; ␩2 ⫽ .31
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 17.07; p ⫽ .0002; ␩2 ⫽ .33
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.30; p ⫽ .042; ␩2 ⫽ .09
Frontal
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.20; p ⫽ .048; ␩2 ⫽ .11 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group NG left; p ⫽ .00007
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 23.45 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group NG right; p ⫽ .013
p ⫽ .00003; ␩2 ⫽ .40 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group Ne left; p ⫽ .002
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 5.46; p ⫽ .006; ␩2 ⫽ .13 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group Ne right; p ⫽ .025
DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION

Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere

F(2, 70) ⫽ 8.07; p ⫽ .0007; ␩2 ⫽ .19
LC2 Temporo-parietal Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group POS right; p ⫽ .003
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 18.59; p ⫽ .0001; ␩2 ⫽ .35 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group NG left; p ⫽ .029
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 11.24; p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .24 Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group NG right; p ⫽ .004
Frontal Ctrl group T0 POS left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 POS left; p ⫽ .047
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.98; p ⫽ .032; ␩2 ⫽ .12 Ctrl group T0 POS left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .0002
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 11.21 p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .24 Ctrl group T0 POS left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .00005
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.54; p ⫽ .034; ␩2 ⫽ .09 Ctrl group T0 POS left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .0004
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 4.88; p ⫽ .010; ␩2 ⫽ .12 Ctrl group T0 POS right ⬍ Ctrl group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .0002
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 10.90; p ⫽ .00008; ␩2 ⫽
.24 Ctrl group T0 POS right ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .00006
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.55; p ⫽ .034;
␩2 ⫽ .09 Ctrl group T0 POS right ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .0005
Ctrl group T0 NG left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .0003
Ctrl group T0 NG left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .0001
Ctrl group T0 NG left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .0010
Ctrl group T0 Ne left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .018
Ctrl group T0 Ne left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .007
Ctrl group T0 Ne left ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .047
Ctrl group T1 POS left ⬎ Ctrl group T1 NG right; p ⫽ .001
Ctrl group T1 POS right ⬎ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .002
(table continues)
49
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

50

Table 2 (continued)
Component Montage Post hoc

Ctrl group T1 NG left ⬎ Ctrl group T1 NG right; p ⫽ .000002

LC3 Temporo-parietal
Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 20.73’ p ⫽ .00006; ␩2 ⫽ .37
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 10.80; p ⫽ .002; ␩2 ⫽ .24
Frontal
Time F(1, 35) ⫽ 6.87; p ⫽ .013; ␩2 ⫽ .16
Time ⫻ Hemisphere F(1, 35) ⫽ 4.44; p ⫽ .042; ␩2 ⫽ .11
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 3.88; p ⫽ .025; ␩2 ⫽ .10
Condition ⫻ Hemisphere ⫻ Group F(2, 70) ⫽ 4.14; p ⫽ .020; ␩2 ⫽ .11
Time ⫻ Condition ⫻ Hemisphere F(2, 70) ⫽ 7.50; p ⫽ .001; ␩2 ⫽ .18
Note. Post hoc comparisons (accepted p value ⬍ .01) of the interaction involving the group factor are reported.
Ctrl group T1 NG right ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .000001
Ctrl group T1 NG right ⬍ Ctrl group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .000007
Exp group T0 POS left ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⬍ .0001
Exp group T0 POS left ⬍ Exp group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .010
Exp group T0 POS right ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⬍ .0001
Exp group T0 POS right ⬍ Exp group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .00001
Exp group T0 POS right ⬍ Exp group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .014
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .014
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⫽ .0000
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 POS right; p ⫽ .0007
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 NG left; p ⬍ .0001
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 NG right; p ⫽ .039
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .0001
Exp group T0 NG left ⬍ Exp group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .003
Exp group T0 NG right ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⫽ .0000
Exp group T0 NG right ⬍ Exp group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .0014
Exp group T0 Ne left ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⫽ .0000
Exp group T0 Ne left ⬍ Exp group T1 NG left; p ⫽ .0006
Exp group T0 Ne right ⬍ Exp group T1 POS left; p ⫽ .00001
Exp group T0 POS left ⬎ Exp group T1 POS right; p ⫽ .0003
Exp group T0 POS left ⬎ Exp group T1 NG right; p ⫽ .00004
Exp group T0 POS left ⬎ Exp group T1 Ne left; p ⫽ .002
Exp group T0 POS left ⬎ Exp group T1 Ne right; p ⫽ .00007
Ctrl group NG right ⬍ Ctrl group Ne right; p ⫽ .024
Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group POS right; p ⫽ .049
Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group NG right; p ⫽ .0003
Exp group POS left ⬎ Exp group Ne left; p ⫽ .028
LAI ET AL.
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 51

Experimental group Control group Experimental group Control group

6 6 6 6
POSITIVE T0 POSITIVE T0 POSITIVE T0 POSITIVE T0
5 5 5 5
POSITIVE T1 POSITIVE T1 POSITIVE T1 POSITIVE T1
4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
-100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-2 -2 -2 -2
-3 -3 -3 -3
-4 -4 -4 -4
-5 -5 -5 -5
-6 -6 -6 -6

6 6 6 6
NEGATIVE T0 NEGATIVE T0 NEGATIVE T0 NEGATIVE T0
5 5 5
NEGATIVE T1
5
NEGATIVE T1
NEGATIVE T1 NEGATIVE T1
4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

-100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-2 -2 -2 -2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

-3 -3 -3 -3

-4 -4 -4 -4

-5 -5 -5 -5
-6 -6 -6
-6

6 6 6 6
NEUTRAL T0 NEUTRAL T0 NEUTRAL T0 NEUTRAL T0
5 5 5 NEUTRAL T1 5
NEUTRAL T1
NEUTRAL T1 NEUTRAL T1
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
-100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-2 -2 -2 -2
-3 -3 -3 -3
-4 -4 -4 -4
-5 -5 -5 -5
-6 -6 -6 -6

Left Frontal Right Frontal

Figure 2. Event-related potential grand average on left and right frontal montages in response to
positive, negative, and neutral conditions at T0 and T1 in the experimental and control groups.

Discussion

The main finding of the present study was that the dream recall, differently
from the work experiences report, produced an increased activation of the limbic
(involving amygdala, hippocampus, amygdala-hippocampus junction, and parahip-
pocampal areas) and inferior temporal area (BA20) in response to emotional
stimuli.
This finding confirms that dream recalling seems to affect the emotional state
and the processing of emotional stimuli. Specifically, to recall a dream seems to
facilitate a greater involvement of limbic and temporal brain circuits during
emotional processing, a possible neural correlate of a greater reactivity to emo-
tional stimuli. This interpretation sustains the clinical and psychodynamic evidence
where recalling a dream can favor a greater disposition to feel and to process
emotional meanings (Glucksman, 2001, Glucksman & Kramer, 2004).
In the present study, contrary to the hypothesis, the personal reports (dream
recall and work experiences recounting) produced a decreased activation of the
anterior middle frontal gyrus (BA46) and the temporo-parietal junction in response
to emotional images. This finding shows that the activity of these brain circuits was
decreased in emotional processing after both of the personal recalls. A possible
explanation of this result is that the anterior middle frontal gyrus and the
temporo-parietal junction could be involved in the emotional attentional processing
(Anticevic, Barch, & Repovs, 2010; Kerestes et al., 2012) and a previous mnemonic
activity (personal report) could interfere with the attentional processes required by
the experimental task. The personal report recall, then, could have a down-
regulating effect on the selective attentional processes. Consistently with this
interpretation, previous studies showed that the prefrontal cortex was hyperacti-
vated in depressed patients during emotional processing (Harvey et al., 2005;
Vasudev, Firbank, Gati, Ionson, & Thomas, 2018), showing a main role of this brain
area on autonomic control (Vasudev et al., 2018).
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

52

Table 3
Basic Single Comparisons (Bonferroni Correction Was Applied With Accepted p Value From .003 to .006) on Each Brodmann Area’s (BA) Mean Intensity for Each
Region of Interest (ROIs) for All the Intervals (P1, N1, P2, LC1, LC2, LC3, LC4) in Both Hemisphere Left (l) and Right (r) During Emotional Images Presentation
(POS: Positive; NG: Negative) in Each Group (Experimental and Control)
Intervals

BA’s
ROIs intensity P1 (60–160 ms) N1 (160–230 ms) P2 (230–320 ms) N3 (320–400 ms) LC1 (400–600 ms) LC2 (600–800 ms) LC3 (800–1,000 ms)

Experimental
group
POS
L 1 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .002 lAmyp ⫽ .00006 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .003 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000001 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .002 lAmyp ⫽ .00003
l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0006 lBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .002 l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .002 l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .004 l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .002 lBA27p ⬍ .00001 lBA27p ⫽ .0004
l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0003 lBA28p ⫽ .000005 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .004 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0004 lBA28p ⫽ .000001
lBA34p ⬍ .00001 lBA34p ⫽ .0007 l&rBA34p ⫽ .00006;p ⫽ .002 l&rBA34p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA34p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA34p ⫽ .000002; p ⫽ .003 lBA34p ⫽ .0009
l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .00002 l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0001 l&rBA35p ⫽ .00000; p ⫽ .0003 l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000009 l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000002 lBA35p ⬍ .00001 lBA35p ⬍ .00001
l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .001 l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .001 lBA36p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0001 l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .00003 lBA36p ⬍ .00001 lBA36p ⫽ .000008
l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .004 lHippop ⫽ .000001 lHippop ⬍ .00001 l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .001 l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0002 lHippop ⫽ .000002 lHippop ⫽ .0005
2
F 1 rBA11p ⫽ .006 l&rBA11p ⫽ .0004;p ⫽ .001 rBA11p ⫽ .003
2 lBA46p ⫽ .003 lBA46p ⫽ .0001 lBA46p ⫽ .000001 lBA46p ⫽ .000001
T 1 lBA20p ⫽ .003 lBA20p ⫽ .003 lBA20p ⫽ .00001 lBA20p ⫽ .002 l&rBA20p ⫽ .000006; p ⫽ .0005 lBA20p ⫽ .001
lBA38p ⫽ .002 lBA38p ⫽ .002 l&rBA38p ⫽ .0003;p ⫽ .0003 l&rBA38p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 rBA38p ⫽ .00003
2 rBA42p ⫽ .001 rBA43p ⫽ .001 rBA42p ⫽ .0006 l&rBA42p ⫽ .0002; p ⫽ .0005 l&rBA42p ⫽ .000006; p ⫽ .00009 l&rBA42p ⫽ .00001; p ⫽ .00003
rBA43p ⫽ .0006 l&rBA43p ⫽ .00005; p ⫽ .005 l&rBA43p ⫽ .000001; p ⫽ .006 l&rBA43p ⫽ .000001; p ⫽ .004
NG
L 1 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000006 l&rAmyp ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rAmyp ⫽ .002; p ⫽ .000002 l&rAmyp ⫽ .001; p ⫽ .000001 rAmyp ⫽ .002
l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0004 l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .00004 lBA27p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA27p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000002 lBA27p ⫽ .003 l&rBA28p ⫽ .000006; p ⬍ .00001 rBA28p ⫽ .0003
l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA28p ⫽ .00002; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA34p ⫽ .002; p ⫽ .00002 rBA36p ⫽ .003
l&rBA34p ⫽ .000001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA34p ⫽ .000001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA34p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .000006 l&rBA34p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 rBA34p ⫽ .00005 l&rBA35p ⫽ .00003; p ⫽ .000003
l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA35p ⫽ .00000; p ⫽ .00002 l&rBA35p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA35p ⫽ .00001; p ⫽ .00004 l&rBA36p ⫽ .0003; p ⫽ .000002
l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA36p ⫽ .00000;p ⫽ .000005 l&rBA36p ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rBA36p ⫽ .0001; p ⫽ .00006 rHippop ⫽ .0001
l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .0007 l&rHippop ⬍ .00001; p ⬍ .00001 rHippop ⫽ .0006
2
F 1
2
T 1 l&rBA20p ⫽ .0002; p ⫽ .00009 rBA20p ⫽ .001 rBA20p ⫽ .003 rBA20p ⫽ .004
rBA38p ⫽ .003 rBA38p ⫽ .0005
2 rBA42p ⫽ .006 lBA42p ⫽ .001
lBA43p ⫽ .005
LAI ET AL.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 3 (continued)
Intervals

BA’s
ROIs intensity P1 (60–160 ms) N1 (160–230 ms) P2 (230–320 ms) N3 (320–400 ms) LC1 (400–600 ms) LC2 (600–800 ms) LC3 (800–1,000 ms)

Control
group
intervals
POS
L 1
2 lBA27p ⫽ .001 lBA27p ⫽ .0009 lBA27p ⫽ .00008 lBA27p ⫽ .0002 lBA27p ⫽ .00005 lBA27p ⫽ .00003 lBA27p ⫽ .000001
lBA35p ⫽ .001 lBA35p ⫽ .003 lBA35p ⫽ .0005 lBA35p ⫽ .0001 lBA35p ⫽ .00001
lBA36p ⫽ .001 lBA36p ⫽ .002 lBA36p ⫽ .0003 lBA36p ⫽ .0002 lBA36p ⫽ .000008
lHippop ⫽ .004 lHippop ⫽ .002 lHippop ⫽ .001 lHippop ⫽ .0001
DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION

F 1 l&rBA11p ⫽ .000003; p ⫽ .0007 l&rBA11p ⫽ .00008; p ⫽ .002 l&rBA11p ⫽ .0001; p ⫽ .001 l&rBA11p ⫽ .0004; p ⫽ .003
2 lBA46p ⫽ .0007 lBA46p ⫽ .000005
T 1 lBA38p ⫽ .0002
2 l&rBA20p ⫽ .003; p ⫽ .0007 lBA20p ⫽ .00001 lBA20p ⫽ .0002 lBA20p ⬍ .00001
lBA41p ⫽ .002 lBA41p ⫽ .001 lBA41p ⫽ .001 lBA21p ⫽ .0003
lBA42p ⫽ .003 lBA42p ⫽ .001 lBA42p ⫽ .00005 lBA41p ⫽ .00006
lBA43p ⫽ .003 lBA43p ⫽ .0009 lBA43p ⫽ .00003 lBA42p ⬍ .00001
lBA43p ⬍ .00001
NG
L 1
2 lBA27p ⫽ .003
lBA35p ⫽ .00006
lBA36p ⫽ .00009
lHippop ⫽ .002
F 1 l&rBA11p ⬍ .00001; p ⫽ .00006 l&rBA11p ⫽ .00002; p ⫽ .003 lBA11p ⫽ .00006 lBA11p ⫽ .0003
2 lBA46p ⫽ .001 lBA46p ⫽ .0008 lBA46p ⫽ .0006 lBA46p ⫽ .00008
T 1 lBA38p ⫽ .00004 lBA38p ⫽ .0004
2 lBA20p ⫽ .001
lBA42p ⫽ .00009
lBA43p ⫽ .00009

Note. 1 ⫽ BAs intensity was higher at T1 compared with T0; 2 ⫽ BAs intensity was lower at T1 compared with T0; Amy ⫽ amygdala; Hippo ⫽ hippocampus.
ROIs: L ⫽ limbic areas; F ⫽ frontal cortex; T ⫽ temporal areas.
53
 54 LAI ET AL.

Moreover, consistently with the findings of the present study, De Gennaro and
colleagues (2011) reported a bilateral activation of the amygdala during dream
recall after awaking from REM sleep. These authors suggested, in line with the
activation-synthesis hypothesis, that an increased activation of the amygdala and
hippocampus could be due to a functional prefrontal deactivation associated with
the production of bizarre content, typical of dreams (Hobson et al., 2000).
Consistent with the findings discussed above (De Gennaro et al., 2011), the results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

of the present study confirmed that the dream recall could have an influence on the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

limbic system, leading to a hyperactivation of it. However, at present, there are no

ERP studies that have investigated how long this effect could last, but there are
only a few previous studies that investigated the brain activity in individuals with
different dream recall frequencies (Eichenlaub, Nicolas, et al., 2014), suggesting
that dream recall activity is associated with a specific functional organization of the
brain (Aceto et al., 2007; Eichenlaub, Bertrand, et al., 2013).
In addition, in the present study, the data showed a significant activation of the
hippocampal and parahippocampal areas after dream recall that could support the
involvement of memory circuits during the emotional task (Aceto et al., 2007,
2013).
The ERP and, correspondingly, the sLORETA analyses did not show signifi-
cant differences between the two groups; however, the trend of amplitude/intensity
between before and after the dream recall was different from the trend between
before and after the work experience recounting.
A possible limitation of the present study was that emotional arousal of the
participants was not assessed in a psychometric way. A future study could consider
biometric parameters such as skin conductance, heart rate frequency, or body
temperature by an infrared camera.
Moreover, another potential limitation regards the lack of control on the phase
of menstrual cycle that could have affected the experimental responses, considering
that the menstrual cycle is associated with changes in circadian rhythms and dream
quality (Nowakowski, Meers, & Heimbach, 2013).
Furthermore, the large number of analyses conducted in the present study
could be considered as a limitation, since it could have increased the chance of Type
I error. However, in order to prevent this possibility, the significance thresholds
have been kept very conservative.
Finally, the present study confirmed an effect of dreaming recall on the
fronto-limbic system. However, it is not possible to establish how long the duration
of this influence is from the present data. Future studies are needed to clarify how
these effects could persist during this time.
In conclusion, the present study showed that dream recall activity seems to be
associated with an increased intensity of the fronto-limbic and temporal circuits
during the emotional exposition suggesting that dream recall seems to favor
emotional experiencing.

References

Aceto, P., Congedo, E., Lai, C., Valente, A., Gualtieri, E., & De Cosmo, G. (2007). Dreams recall and
auditory evoked potentials during propofol anaesthesia. NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication
of Neuroscience Research, 18, 823–826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280e129f5
 DREAM RECALL AND EMOTION 55

Aceto, P., Lai, C., Perilli, V., Dello Russo, C., Federico, B., Navarra, P., . . . Sollazzi, L. (2013).
Stress-related biomarkers of dream recall and implicit memory under anaesthesia. Anaesthesia, 68,
1141–1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anae.12386
Anticevic, A., Barch, D. M., & Repovs, G. (2010). Resisting emotional interference: Brain regions
facilitating working memory performance during negative distraction. Cognitive, Affective &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 159 –173. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.2.159
Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Parker, J. D. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—II.
Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 33–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90006-X
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Berlin, K. L., Means, M. K., & Edinger, J. D. (2010). Nightmare reduction in a Vietnam veteran using
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

imagery rehearsal therapy. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine: Official publication of the American
Academy of Sleep Medicine, 6, 487.
Cecchini, M., Aceto, P., Altavilla, D., Palumbo, L., & Lai, C. (2013). The role of the eyes in processing
an intact face and its scrambled image: A dense array ERP and low-resolution electromagnetic
tomography (sLORETA) study. Social Neuroscience, 8, 314 –325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470
919.2013.797020
Cecchini, M., Iannoni, M. E., Pandolfo, A. L., Aceto, P., & Lai, C. (2015). Attachment style dimensions
are associated with brain activity in response to gaze interaction. Social Neuroscience, 10, 282–293.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
De Gennaro, L., Cipolli, C., Cherubini, A., Assogna, F., Cacciari, C., Marzano, C., . . . Spalletta, G.
(2011). Amygdala and hippocampus volumetry and diffusivity in relation to dreaming. Human
Brain Mapping, 32, 1458 –1470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21120
De Gennaro, L., Ferrara, M., Cristiani, R., Curcio, G., Martiradonna, V., & Bertini, M. (2003).
Alexithymia and dream recall upon spontaneous morning awakening. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65,
301–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000058373.50240.71
De Gennaro, L., Marzano, C., Cipolli, C., & Ferrara, M. (2012). How we remember the stuff that dreams
are made of: Neurobiological approaches to the brain mechanisms of dream recall. Behavioural
Brain Research, 226, 592–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.10.017
Eichenlaub, J. B., Bertrand, O., Morlet, D., & Ruby, P. (2014). Brain reactivity differentiates subjects
with high and low dream recall frequencies during both sleep and wakefulness. Cerebral Cortex, 24,
1206 –1215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs388
Eichenlaub, J. B., Nicolas, A., Daltrozzo, J., Redouté, J., Costes, N., & Ruby, P. (2014). Resting brain
activity varies with dream recall frequency between subjects. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39,
1594 –1602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2014.6
Fosse, R., Stickgold, R., & Hobson, J. A. (2001). The mind in REM sleep: Reports of emotional
experience. Sleep, 24, 947–955.
Glucksman, M. L. (2001). The dream: A psychodynamically informative instrument. The Journal of
Psychotherapy Practice & Research, 10, 223–230.
Glucksman, M. L., & Kramer, M. (2004). Using dreams to assess clinical change during treatment.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis & Dynamic Psychiatry, 32, 345–358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jaap.32.2.345.35276
Harvey, P. O., Fossati, P., Pochon, J. B., Levy, R., Lebastard, G., Lehéricy, S., . . . Dubois, B. (2005).
Cognitive control and brain resources in major depression: An fMRI study using the n-back task.
NeuroImage, 26, 860 –869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.048
Hobson, J. A., Pace-Schott, E. F., & Stickgold, R. (2000). Dreaming and the brain: Toward a cognitive
neuroscience of conscious states. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 793–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0140525X00003976
Jatoi, M. A., Kamel, N., Malik, A. S., Faye, I., & Begum, T. (2014). A survey of methods used for source
localization using EEG signals. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 11, 42–52.
Kerestes, R., Ladouceur, C. D., Meda, S., Nathan, P. J., Blumberg, H. P., Maloney, K., . . . Phillips, M. L.
(2012). Abnormal prefrontal activity subserving attentional control of emotion in remitted
depressed patients during a working memory task with emotional distracters. Psychological
Medicine, 42, 29 –40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711001097
Kroth, J., Bush, S., Frost, J., Paez, A., Prakash, R., & Raft, M. (2003). Empathy and frequency of answers
to questions about dreams after September 11th. Psychological Reports, 92, 1065–1066.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.3c.1065
Lai, C., Altavilla, D., Mazza, M., Scappaticci, S., Tambelli, R., Aceto, P., . . . Tonioni, F. (2017). Neural
correlate of Internet use in patients undergoing psychological treatment for Internet addiction.
Journal of Mental Health, 26, 276 –282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1294745
Lai, C., Altavilla, D., Ronconi, A., & Aceto, P. (2016). Fear of missing out (FOMO) is associated with
activation of the right middle temporal gyrus during inclusion social cue. Computers in Human
Behavior, 61, 516 –521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.072
 56 LAI ET AL.

Lai, C., Luciani, M., Di Giorgio, C., Fiorini, R., Yaya, G., Pellicano, G. R., . . . Aceto, P. (2018). Brain
functional connectivity of meaning attribution in patients with psychosis: Preliminary electroen-
cephalographic observations. Schizophrenia Research, 199, 449 –451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.schres.2018.04.005
Lancaster, J. L., Woldorff, M. G., Parsons, L. M., Liotti, M., Freitas, C. S., Rainey, L., . . . Fox, P. T.
(2000). Automated Talairach atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Human Brain Mapping, 10,
120 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0193(200007)10:3⬍120::AID-HBM30⬎3.0.CO;2-8
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS):
Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Tech. Rep. No. A-8). Gainesville, FL:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Florida.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Levin, R., Fireman, G., Spendlove, S., & Pope, A. (2011). The relative contribution of affect load and
affect distress as predictors of disturbed dreaming. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 9, 173–183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2011.583905
Levin, R., & Nielsen, T. A. (2007). Disturbed dreaming, posttraumatic stress disorder, and affect
distress: A review and neurocognitive model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 482–528.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.482
Luciani, M., Cecchini, M., Altavilla, D., Palumbo, L., Aceto, P., Ruggeri, G., . . . Lai, C. (2014). Neural
correlate of the projection of mental states on the not-structured visual stimuli. Neuroscience
Letters, 573, 24 –29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2014.05.008
Massaro, G., Altavilla, D., Aceto, P., Pellicano, G. R., Lucarelli, G., Luciani, M., & Lai, C. (2018).
Neurophysiological correlates of collective trauma recall in 2009 L’Aquila earthquake survivors.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31, 687–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.22334
Nappi, C. M., Drummond, S. P., Thorp, S. R., & McQuaid, J. R. (2010). Effectiveness of imagery
rehearsal therapy for the treatment of combat-related nightmares in veterans. Behavior Therapy,
41, 237–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.03.003
Nowakowski, S., Meers, J., & Heimbach, E. (2013). Sleep and women’s health. Sleep Medicine Research,
4, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.17241/smr.2013.4.1.1
Pascual-Marqui, R. D., Esslen, M., Kochi, K., & Lehmann, D. (2002). Functional imaging with
low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA): A review. Methods and Findings in
Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, 24(Suppl. C), 91–95.
Picton, T. W., Bentin, S., Berg, P., Donchin, E., Hillyard, S. A., Johnson, R., . . . Taylor, M. J. (2000).
Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: Recording standards and
publication criteria. Psychophysiology, 37, 127–152.
Rhudy, J. L., Davis, J. L., Williams, A. E., McCabe, K. M., Bartley, E. J., Byrd, P. M., & Pruiksma, K. E.
(2010). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for chronic nightmares in trauma-exposed persons: Assess-
ing physiological reactions to nightmare-related fear. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66, 365–382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20656
Schredl, M., Bohusch, C., Kahl, J., Mader, A., & Somesan, A. (2000). The use of dreams in
psychotherapy: A survey of psychotherapists in private practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice
and Research, 9, 81–87.
Schredl, M., & Reinhard, I. (2011). Gender differences in nightmare frequency: A meta-analysis. Sleep
Medicine Reviews, 15, 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2010.06.002
Semiz, U. B., Basoglu, C., Ebrinc, S., & Cetin, M. (2008). Nightmare disorder, dream anxiety, and
subjective sleep quality in patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 62, 48 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01789.x
Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce
artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysi-
ology, 52, 997–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12437
Vasudev, A., Firbank, M. J., Gati, J. S., Ionson, E., & Thomas, A. J. (2018). BOLD activation of the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex in patients with late life depression and comparison participants.
International Psychogeriatrics, 30, 629 –634.