Table 4.

Within-network correlations per hemisphere and between hemispheres

Experiment	Hemisphere	Language	ToM	MD
1a. Rest	LH	0.51	0.52	0.32
		(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.17)
	RH	0.37	0.56	0.36
		(0.17)	(0.18)	(0.17)
	LH-RH	0.27	0.46	0.22
		(0.17)	(0.18)	(0.17)
1b. Stories	LH	0.69	0.56	0.39
		(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.16)
	RH	0.47	0.59	0.42
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(0.16)
	LH-RH	0.44	0.52	0.32
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(0.16)
2. Stories	LH	0.68	0.48
		(0.18)	(0.16)
	RH	0.44	0.59
		(0.16)	(0.17)
	LH-RH	0.37	0.46
		(0.16)	(0.16)
3a. Stories	LH	0.59	0.53	0.34
		(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.16)
	RH	0.36	0.60	0.38
		(0.17)	(0.18)	(0.16)
	LH-RH	0.35	0.51	0.28
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(0.16)
3b. Stories (nonverbal ToM  localizer)	LH	0.59	0.43	0.34
		(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.16)
	RH	0.36	0.47	0.38
		(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.16)
	LH-RH	0.35	0.44	0.27
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(0.16)

Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Correlations are highly significant (P < 10⁻⁶) within the three networks, at rest and during story comprehension. The language and multiple demand (MD) correlations replicate Blank et al. (2014). The within theory of mind (ToM) correlation is robust too, with the verbal and nonverbal ToM localizer.