Brief overview of the paper and its main findings This manuscript reported that more attentional resources allocated for novel sexual stimuli in an individual with high tendencies towered PIPU. The text is well written, and the obtained results are clear.

Major and minor points Some modifications are required mainly in the Methods and Results, as follows.

1. For the analysis procedure of ERP, please describe the information about the baseline correction.

2. Even if ICA is performed, various artifacts are likely to remain. Did you determine a threshold voltage (e.g., 100 μv) and exclude trials that exceeded it? And, did you exclude trials that occurred with false alarms? If you performed these, please describe their information. In addition, please describe the information related to the number of remaining trials (epochs) after artifact rejections.

3. You presented the topographical maps of the difference wave amplitudes (Fig. 2). Similarly, it would be preferable to present the map of the mean LPP amplitudes (500-800 ms window).

4. For the questionnaire, it would be preferable to perform nonparametric tests because they are ordinal scales.

5. For the t-test described on page 11, lines 19-21, which electrode was analyzed? Also, why was a t-test conducted for the difference amplitude while an ANOVA was conducted with the electrode as a within-subject factor for mean amplitude? Please describe their information.

6. For the results of post hoc comparisons, please describe the p-values.

7. From Fig. 1, it looks like there are group differences in amplitude and peak latency before the time window of LPP. Early ERP responses are also thought to be related to attention. Therefore, it would be preferable to perform analyses for other ERP responses. Even if there are no group differences in other ERP responses, the results provide evidence of group differences in the attention reflected in the LPP.

Conflicts of interest

No.