Fig. 2.

Network reliance at rest as a function of EF performance. Patterns of network reliance were computed based on the average number of nodes lost per network for each stage of matrix lesioning. Overall, degradation patterns appeared to differ as a function of EF performance. a Individuals scoring higher across EF tasks (cEF component) showed an initial greater loss of DMN nodes, opposite to the lower performers, who appeared to rely more on VIS nodes instead. Interestingly, the pattern switched along the lesioning process, with high and low performers losing visual and DMN/FPN nodes at the last stages of lesioning, respectively. b Performance scores for the shifting-specific (SHI) component proved that, even at rest, higher performers tend to rely more on CING and SUB network nodes, whereas those same networks appear of less relevance in low performers, who lose them only at the last stages of lesioning. c. Higher and lower performers at the updating-specific (UPD) component tended to equally rely more on bottom-up attentional networks (VAN), with a slight tendency for higher performers to also lose more DMN nodes. In the legend, brain size is indicative of the associated statistical significance of each finding. *AUD auditory network, cEF common executive function, CING cingulo-opercular network, DAN dorsal attention network, DMN default mode network, FPN fronto-parietal network, ns non-significant, SHI shifting-specific factor, SMN sensorimotor network, SN salience network, SUB subcortical network, UPD updating-specific factor, VAN ventral attention network, VIS visual network