Table 2.

Coordinates of the ATL nodes, and the calculated values of the within module weighted degree and participation coefficient.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25069.008

Number Of Voxels	MNI center coordinates	Within module weighted degree	Participation coefficient
23	42, -14, -26	3.91	0.58
13	40, -10, -32	4.81	0.58
20	40, -12, -28	5.15	0.59
Voxels	40, -10, -32	Weighted Mean:	Weighted Mean:
Sum:
55		4.63	0.58

Coordinates of the ATL are in line with (Rajimehr et al., 2009; Pyles et al., 2013). To assess whether the differences are specific to face-selective nodes, the ratio of face-selective nodes and non-face selective nodes connected to the ATL nodes was quantified using within-module weighted degree and participation coefficient. Within-module weighted degree measures the ISFC level of a node within its module. In this analysis, a module is defined as one of the three types of functional tags (faces, non-faces and overlap). Note that this definition is different from the graph theoretical modularity measure as used in the first section of the results. The participation coefficient measures the inter-module diversity of the nodes' connections, meaning how much a node is connected not only within its own module but across modules (Guimerà and Nunes Amaral, 2005).

This resulted in a within-module weighted degree weighted average of 4.63 and a participation coefficient weighted average of 0.58. Values greater than 2 are considered as a 'module hub'. Additionally, 'module hubs' with a participation coefficient between 0.3 and 0.75 are treated as 'connector hubs', that is hubs with many connections to most of the other modules (Guimerà and Nunes Amaral, 2005). Importantly, based on these standard values, the differences between controls and CPs, assigned to the ATL, are not a priori face specific.