1

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Results

Sensitivity power analyses

To verify that our study had sufficient power to detect the effects of interest, we have

performed sensitivity power analyses to estimate the required effect size and to evaluate the

actual power for each effect as recommended by a new article (Lakens, 2021). These analyses

demonstrated that the following tests in this study had sufficient power to detect the core effects

of interest. The analyses reported below were performed using the G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al.,

2009), RRID:SCR_013726, http://www.gpower.hhu.de/.

For the main effect of Orienting in the 2 (Orienting: overt, covert) × 2 (Cueing:

endogenous, exogenous) of eye movement and RT, sensitivity power analysis showed that a

minimal effect size f of 0.36 (critical F = 4.49) is required for a given significant level of α = .05,

sample size = 17, and power = .80 (Test family: F tests; Statistical test: ANOVA: Repeated

measures, within factors; Input parameters: number of groups = 1, number of measurements: 2,

correlation among rep measures: 0.5, nonsphericity correction ε = 1). Our study had sufficient

power for this effect in the analyses of eye movement (F1, 16 = 898.80, ηp2 = .98, effect size f = 7).

For the conjunction of two one-sample t-tests (Overt-versus-baseline and Covert-versus-

baseline) in the GLM for the fMRI data to identify the ROI of the FEF and IPS, sensitivity power

analysis showed that a minimal effect size d of 0.88 (critical t = 2.74) is required for a given

significant level of FWE-corrected p < .05 (corresponding to α = 0.0073 for each effect), n = 17,

and power = .80 (Test family: t tests, Statistical test: means: difference from constant (one

sample case); Input parameters: tails: one, sample size = 17). Sufficient power was shown for all

ROIs of the FPN, i.e., the left FEF (Overt-versus-baseline: t = 7.07, effect size d = 1.68, Covert-
 2

versus-baseline: t = 6.92, effect size d = 1.72), right FEF (Overt-versus-baseline: t = 5.82, effect

size d = 1.55, Covert-versus-baseline: t = 6.40, effect size d = 1.41), left IPS (Overt-versus-

baseline: t = 6.92, effect size d = 1.51, Covert-versus-baseline: t = 6.21, effect size d = 1.68), and

right IPS (Overt-versus-baseline: t = 6.57, effect size d = 1.59, Covert-versus-baseline: t = 6.21,

effect size d = 1.51).

For the one sample-tests (one-tailed) to compare the performance of the classification

based on the voxel-wise activation in the FEF and IPS to the chance level, a minimal effect size f

of 0.63 (critical t = 1.75) is required for a given significant level of α = .05, sample size n = 17,

and power = .80 (Test family: t tests, Statistical test: means: difference from constant (one

sample case); Input parameters: tails: one, sample size = 17). Therefore, all of the three overt-

versus-covert classifications had sufficient power (FEF: t = 72.64, effect size d = 7.22; IPS: t =

32.91, effect size d = 7.87; FEF + IPS: t = 35.46, effect size d = 8.59).

Results of the region of interest (ROI) analysis

Activation of the FEF in each condition was also examined in a regional-average manner.

Average activation across all voxels in the cluster of FEF was first calculated. The cluster of FEF

was divided into the ROI of left and right FEF based on the x dimension of the MNI coordinate

(negative value: left; positive value right). Regional activation of each ROI was estimated as the

averaged beta value across all voxels in each ROI. A 2 (Orienting: overt, covert) × 2 (Cueing:

endogenous, exogenous) ANOVA was conducted on activation of the left and right FEF,

respectively.

We found that the main effect of Orienting was not significant for the left FEF, F1,16 =

0.50, p = .488, ηp2 = .03, the left IPS, F1,16 = 0.25, p = .621, ηp2 = .02, the right IPS, F1,16 = 2.10, p

= .167, ηp2 = .12, but was significant for the right FEF, F1,16 = 7.10, p = .017, ηp2 = .31, with
 3

significantly greater activation in the covert conditions than in the overt conditions in this region.

The main effect of Cueing was not significant for neither the left FEF, F1,16 = 3.68, p = .07, ηp2 =

.19, nor for the right FEF, F1,16 = 2.44, p = .138, ηp2 = .13, but was significant for the left IPS,

F1,16 = 12.96, p = .002, ηp2 = .45, and the right IPS, F1,16 = 12.30, p = .003, ηp2 = .435, with

significantly greater activation in the exogeneous condition than in the endogenous condition.

Orienting by Cueing interaction was not significant for the left FEF, F1,16 = 1.60, p = .22, ηp2 =

.09, the right FEF, F1,16 = 2.08, p = .17, ηp2 = .12, the left IPS, F1,16 = 2.07, p = .170, ηp2 = .12,

and the right IPS, F1,16 = 3.88, p = .07, ηp2 = .20.

The topological property of the overt- and covert-preferred clusters

Analysis of the G function, which aggregates the distance from the local extreme in each

cluster (local minimum for overt and local maximum for covert) to the local extreme in its

nearest neighbor cluster, showed that both within-type (i.e., overt-to-covert and covert-to-covert)

and cross-type (i.e., overt-to-covert and covert-to-overt) G functions were significantly below the

baseline for both FEF (Supplementary Fig. 9a) and IPS and (Supplementary Fig. 9b). It

indicates that local minima (representing overt-preferred clusters) and local maxima

(representing covert-preferred clusters) distributed separately in space, and the distance between

a local extreme and its nearest local extreme were significantly further than in random

distribution, no matter whether they were with the same and the opposite preferences.

Importantly, the cross-type G functions were significantly above the within-type G functions,

indicating that the distance between a local extreme and its nearest neighbor were significantly

closer when they were in a different preference when they were in the same different preference.

Similarly, analysis of the K functions, which characterizes whether the clusters tend to be

grouped together or dispersed, showed that the cross-type K functions were significantly above
 4

the within-type K functions, with the cross-type K functions significantly above the baseline for

both FEF (Supplementary Fig. 9c) and IPS and (Supplementary Fig. 9d). It indicates that

clusters of different preference trended to be grouped together. Taken together, these results

suggest that the overt- and covert-preferred clusters distributed in an interlaced pattern.

Connectivity of the FPN in overt and covert orienting

We also explored the difference in functional connectivity between overt-preferred and

covert-preferred voxels to other brain regions using psychophysiological interaction analyses,

but did not observe any significant difference under the threshold of FWE corrected p < .05.

Specifically, for the FEF, overt-preferred showed a significantly stronger modulation effect than

covert-preferred in the right fusiform gyrus, the right precentral and postcentral gyri, and the left

SMA. In contrast, covert-preferred voxels showed a significantly stronger modulation effect than

overt-preferred in left middle occipital gyrus and areas in the cerebellum (left and right

cerebellum VIII, right cerebellum crus I, right cerebellum VI, and vermis) (Supplementary Fig.

10a and Supplementary Table 13). For the IPS, covert-preferred voxels showed a significantly

stronger modulation effect than overt-preferred in primary visual cortex (calcarine cortex),

extrastriate visual cortex (including lingual gyrus, cuneus, and precuneus), fusiform gyrus,

precentral and postcentral gyri, rostral and middle cingulate cortex, inferior frontal gyrus,

hippocampus, superior temporal gyrus, and Rolandic operculum (Supplementary Fig. 10b and

Supplementary Table 14). No voxels showed a significant reversed effect.

Supplementary Methods

Analysis of the topological property of the overt- and covert-preferred clusters

Morse decomposition based on Morse theory. We consider the weight map on all

voxels as a uniform sample from a weight map f defined on the continuous 3-dimensional space.
 5

The negative gradient of a given point (p), denoted as -Ñf(p), indicates the steepest descending

direction of f. Let p = (x, y, z).

*+ *+ *+ 2
−∇𝑓 (𝑝) = − )*, , *. , … , *0 1 .

A critical point in the map is the point where the gradient of function at this point

vanishes (i.e., -Ñf(xi) = 0). For a well-behaved function (more formally, called Morse function),

a critical point could be a minimum (i.e., a point where all surrounding landscape curves up), a

maximum (i.e., a point where the surrounding landscape curves down), or a saddle point (i.e., a

point where the surrounding landscape curves up in some directions and down in the others). The

local minima and local maxima are also called basins and peaks. Only local minima and local

maxima were considered in this study. In the image context, we can detect whether a voxel is a

local minimum or local maximum by comparing its weight map value with its neighbors.

Areas surrounding each extremum can be identified based on its stable/unstable manifold.

The stable manifold S(p) of a local minimum p is defined as the collection of points with their

negative gradient direction ending at p, corresponding to the entire basin around this local

minimum. The unstable manifold U(p) of a local maximum p is the stable manifold of p with its

negative function (-f), corresponding the entire mountain around this point.

Application of Morse decomposition to the weight map for each FPN region. We first

cropped each participant’s averaged weight map by a cubical bounding box according to the

mask of each region of the FPN. For each region, the cropped weight map was then decomposed

into an overt-preferred domain comprised by all voxels with negative weights and a covert-

preferred domain comprised by all voxels with positive weights. Voxels outside the mask and

voxels not included for each domain were considered background, and the values in these voxels

were set as 0.
 6

Discrete Morse theory (1, 2) was applied to compute the stable manifolds for local

minima in the overt-preferred domain and the unstable manifolds for local maxima in the overt-

preferred domain. Here, adjacent voxels (neighbors) of each voxel were defined using 26-

connectivity proximity graph in 3-dimension space. We introduced the algorithm applied to

detect the stable manifolds for the overt-preferred domain below. The same algorithm was

applied to the negative function of the covert-preferred domain to detect the unstable manifolds.

In practice, we sorted all voxels in the overt-preferred domain ascendingly according to

their weight. Then we applied thresholds to the overt-preferred domain, with the threshold values

increased from the lowest to the highest weights in a stepwise manner. For each threshold value,

voxels with the weights below this threshold were identified. As the threshold grew, a spanning

component tree were constructed, formed by three categories of voxels: (1) local minima serving

as the root of a component, (2) voxels forming the component surrounding each local minimum.

For a given threshold value, voxels with all of its neighbors never being identified under

previous threshold values were considered a local minimum. Each non-local-minimum voxel

were merged into the components. A set of components, each of which corresponded to the

basins surrounding a local minimum (i.e., stable manifold of this local minimum), were collected

after sweeping through all threshold value. For voxels that were within the mask but were

included into the component of the background, we simply segmented them into connected

components. For covert-preferred voxels, we ran the same algorithm, but sweeping the threshold

from large to small, and collect components surrounding local maxima. Morse decompositions

for the two domains were combined together as the decomposition map for both types of

clusters. Supplementary Fig. 1 illustrates a decomposition procedure for a 2-D image composed

by 20 ´20 pixels generated using the “peaks” function in Matlab, with their values scaled as -5 to
 7

5. Our algorithm was implemented using in-house Python code, which can be download from the

GitHub repository of this study (https://github.com/TingtingWu222/COAT). Details of the

implication of the Morse decompositions is introduced in Hu et al. (2021).

Spatial statistics

The spatial locations of the overt- and covert-preferred clusters were respectively

represented by the locations of local minima and maxima in the weight maps. The G function is

the cumulative distribution function of nearest neighbor distance from source local extreme to

target local extreme, while the K function is the expected number of target extreme within a

circle of radius r. The estimated G and K functions were compared between the within-type (i.e.,

source and target were in the same type) and cross-type (i.e., source and target were in the

different types) distributions. Below we introduce the fundamentals of the functions for the

spatial statistics, i.e., K-function and G-function (3-5), and the implication of these statistics to

the empirical data in this study. Here X denotes a point process that is a random mechanism with

its realization as a point pattern {x1, x2, …, xn | x Î Rn}. The points are in multiple types, with X(i)

denotes the sub-process of type i.

K-function. Let li denote the intensity of X (i), which is a measure of expected number of

points that will fall into a window with unit volume. The K-function for points in type i and type

j is defined as:
7
𝐾45 (𝑟) = 8 𝔼;𝑡=𝜇, 𝑟, 𝑋 (5) @𝜇 ∈ 𝑋 (4) BC,
9

where 𝑡=𝜇, 𝑟, 𝑋 (5) B = ∑I∈M (9) 1{‖,HI‖ J K} is the number of points of type j that fall into an r-ball

centered at a point µ of type i. As illustrated in Supplementary Fig. 2a, the number of points for

a circle with r = 1 surrounding the central point is 6. Given a window W that contains points in

X(i), e.g., the collection of all voxels within the regional mask, an estimator of Ki j(r) is:
 8

N45 (𝑟) = |P| ∑I∈M (R) ∑I∈M (9) 1{‖,HI‖ J K},

𝐾 QQ R 9

where |W| is the size of the window, and ni, nj are the numbers of point in type i and type j,
QR Q9
respectively. The intensity (𝜆4 = |P|
) normalizes the average counting of points in the r-ball to

enable the comparison between different point processes.

G-function. Besides the K-function that quantifies the expected number of neighbors

surrounding each point in the point pattern, the G-function characterizes the distribution of the

nearest neighbor distance among points. Formally, the G-function is cumulative density function

(CDF) of the nearest neighbor distance:

𝐺45 (𝑟) = 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏;𝑑=𝜇, 𝑋 (5) ≤ 𝑟@𝜇 ∈ 𝑋 (4) BC,

where 𝑑=𝜇, 𝑋 (5) B = 𝑚𝑖𝑛,∈M (9) ‖𝜇 − 𝑥‖ is the nearest distance from the type i point at location µ

to any type j point in X(j). Supplementary Fig. 2a also illustrates the distance (d) from the

central point to its nearest neighbor. An estimator of Gi j(r) is the empirical CDF of the nearest

neighbor distance:
7
𝐺^45 (𝑟) = Q ∑I∈M (R) 1_`=I,M (9)B J Ka ,
R

where ni is the number of type i points.

Baseline of the K- and G- functions. The theoretical baseline is the estimates of K- and

G- functions based on a random point process, i.e., the Poisson process (illustrated as points in

Supplementary Fig. 2a in 2-D). In a homogeneous Poisson process in 3-D, points do not have

preferred location in the window and appear with the same probability at all location according

to a constant intensity in 3D. The K-function of such homogeneous Poisson process has a closed

form expression:

bc4d ( ) e
𝐾4 5 𝑟 = f 𝜋𝑟 f ,
 9

which is the volume of an r-ball in 3D space. A point process with a K-function above the K-

function of a Poisson process (baseline) presents a clustering effect, while a point process with a

K-function below the baseline presents regularity effect, i.e., points are evenly spread out

avoiding connecting to each other.

The G-function of a homogeneous Poisson process with intensity li lj has a closed form

expression:
j
𝑟 = 1 − 𝑒 H89 iK .
bc4d ( )
𝐺4 5
Similar to the K-function, a point process with a G-function above the baseline presents

clustering effect, while a point process with a G-function below the baseline is regulated.

Supplementary Fig. 2b and 2c illustrates a highly clustered and a dispersed points

process, respectively, with their number of points being identical to the random process in

Supplementary Fig. 2a. The G function of points in the highly clustered process (red line in

Fig. 10d) was above the baseline (grey line in Supplementary Fig. 2d), because each point and

its nearest neighbor was closed in space. In contrast, the G function of points in the highly

dispersed process (blue line in Supplementary Fig. 2d) was below the baseline, because each

point and its nearest neighbor was well separated in space. The K function of the highly clustered

process (red line in Supplementary Fig. 2e) was above the baseline (grey line in

Supplementary Fig. 2d) when r is low but then below baseline, because this distribution was

clustering at smaller distances but dispersion at larger distances. In contrast, the K function of the

highly dispersed process was always below the baseline (blue line in Supplementary Fig. 2d),

because this distribution was dispersion at any distance.

Pooling the Statistics. For an experiment with repetitions (assuming the underlying point

process remains the same for each repetition), overall summary statistic could be calculated

pooling the statistics with repetitive point patterns. Corresponding to repetitive experiments that
 10

generate N point patterns {X1, X2, … XN}, there are intensity estimation {𝜆k7 , 𝜆kl , …, 𝜆km } (for a
Q
homogeneous Poisson process the estimation 𝜆k is simply |P| which is the total number of points

N ={𝐾
divided by the window size), K-function estimation 𝐾 N7 (𝑟), 𝐾
Nl (𝑟), …, 𝐾
Nm (𝑟)}, and G-

function estimation 𝐺^ ={𝐺^7 (𝑟), 𝐺^l (𝑟), …, 𝐺^m (𝑟)}. Let m = {m1, m2, … mN} be the number of

pairs of points used in each point pattern to estimate the statistics. For example, for each estimate

of the K-function and G-function, we use ni nj pairs of points, so mk = ni nj. Let {W1, W2, … WN}

be the window size of each repetitive. The pooled estimation for intensity is:

∑m k
4q7|𝑊4 |𝜆4
𝜆kncco =
∑m
4q7|𝑊4 |

and pooled estimation for K-function and its variance are:

t N
Nncco (𝑟) = ∑RuvtrR sR (K),
𝐾 ∑ r Ruv R

N j
Nncco (𝑟)] = s{||} (K) =S7,7 + Sl,l − 2S7,l B,
𝑉𝑎𝑟[𝐾 m

N (𝑟)∗ ) is the 2 ´ 2 covariance matrix, S1,1 is the cell value at row 1 and
where ∑ = 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑚∗ , 𝐾

N (𝑟)∗ C,
column 1 which is Var(m*), S2,2 is the cell value at row 2 and column 2 which is 𝑉𝑎𝑟;𝐾

mrv mrj mrt

N (𝑟)∗ . Here 𝑚∗ = ƒ t
and S1,2 is is the covariance between m* and 𝐾 , ∑t , … , ∑t „ and
∑ Ruv rR Ruv rR Ruv rR

msv (K) ms (K) ms (K)

𝐾(𝑟)∗ = ƒ∑t s (K)
, ∑t js (K) , … , ∑t ts (K)„. Similarly, the pooled estimation of G-function and its
Ruv R Ruv R Ruv R

variance are:
t
∑ rR …^R (K)
𝐺^ncco (𝑟) = Ruv
∑ t r
,
Ruv R

… ^ (K) j
𝑉𝑎𝑟[𝐺^ncco (𝑟)] = {||}m =S7,7 + Sl,l − 2S7,l B,

m…v (K) m… (K) m… (K)

where 𝐺(𝑟)∗ = ƒ∑t … (K)
, ∑t j… (K) , … , ∑t t… (K)„.
Ruv R Ruv R Ruv R
 11

Implication of the K- and G-functions. In this study, we used distributions of the local

maxima and minima to represent the distribution of covert- and overt-preferred clusters in space.

The within-type K- and G-functions (i.e., maxima-to-maxima and minima-to-minima) estimated

the distribution across all points in each type of local extreme, i.e., i = j in the above formulas.

The cross-type K- and G-functions (i.e., maxima-to-minima and minima-to-maxima) estimated

the distribution from one type of local extreme to the other. The r-ball and Poisson process were

restricted to voxels within the regional mask. For the group-level estimation of each function,

participants were considered different repetitions. The estimation of the K and G functions was

implemented using and in-house R codes.

Analysis of the connectivity of the FPN in overt and covert orienting

Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analyses to examine the changes in functional

connectivity of the FEF (seed region) to other brain regions under covert and overt conditions. In

the first-level analysis, the time series of the first eigenvariate of all voxels in the cluster of FEF

were extracted from the smoothed EPI images. Bayesian estimation was used to deconvolve this

time series of BOLD signal from the canonical HRF to create the time series of the neural signal

for the FEF and the time series of the experimental vector, i.e., the onsets of overt (weighted as

+1) and covert (weighted as -1) conditions. These time series were demeaned and then multiplied

to create the interaction variable (PPI variable). Three regressors were created for each run,

including: 1) the psychological variable as the experimental vector forward-convolved with the

canonical HRF, 2) the physiological variable as the time series of BOLD signal of the FEF, and

3) the PPI variable. These regressors were then entered into a whole-brain voxel-wise GLM

along with nuisance variables of the 6 motion correction parameters for each run and nuisance

variables coding the 4 sessions. The GLM was estimated and the image of the beta value of the
 12

PPI regressor averaged across runs was created. The random-effects group-level analysis

examined whether the beta value of the PPI regressor was significantly greater or lower than 0

for each voxel. The threshold used for the PPI analysis was the same as in the classical GLM

above.

We also examined that whether the covert-preferred and overt-preferred voxels. regions

in FPN had different connectivity in the two type of orienting. For each of the ROIs (FEF or

IPS), an “overt-preferred” seed region was defined as voxels with the linear SVM weights

significantly lower than zero and a “covert-preferred” seed region was defined as the voxels with

the linear SVM weights significantly greater than zero. Those seed regions were defined in an

individualized manner. A PPI analysis was conducted for each seed using the same routine as

introduced above.

Supplementary Discussion

The decoding of the fine-scale representation was benefited by the high spatial resolution

images acquired using multi-band sequence in the current study. Spatial resolution of the fMRI

signals is important for the decoding of fine-scale representation because low spatial resolution

increases the mix of different types of neurons within each individual voxel (6-8). This argument

is supported by our findings of a reduced classification accuracy after spatially smoothing the

images. The relatively low spatial resolution of image acquisition, for example from 3 ´ 3 ´ 3

mm to 3.75 ´ 3.75 ´ 8 mm, in previous studies has low detection power for the fine scale

patterns comprised of 4 to 5 mm isotropic clusters in the regions of the FPN. The spatial

smoothing by Gaussian kernel with FWHM of 6 to 8 mm in preprocessing (9-12) and the extent

threshold (11) further reduced the detection power for the fine scale patterns in previous studies.
 13

In contrast, the use of unsmoothed images with a finer spatial resolution in this study allowed us

to detect the fine-scale representation within the FPN.

 14

Supplementary Reference

Beauchamp, M. S., Petit, L., Ellmore, T. M., Ingeholm, J., Haxby, J. V., 2001. A parametric
fMRI study of overt and covert shifts of visuospatial attention. Neuroimage 14, 310-321.
De Haan, B., Morgan, P. S., Rorden, C., 2008, Covert orienting of attention and overt eye
movements activate identical brain regions. Brain research 1204, 102-111.
Delgado-Friedrichs, O., Robins, V., Sheppard, A., 2015. Skeletonization and Partitioning of
Digital Images Using Discrete Morse Theory. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 37,
654-666.
Diggle, P. J., Besag, J., Gleaves, J. T., 1976. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns by
means of distance methods. Biometrics, 659-667.
Fairhall, S. L., Indovina, I., Driver, J., Macaluso, E. 2009. The brain network underlying serial
visual search: comparing overt and covert spatial orienting, for activations and for
effective connectivity. Cereb Cortex 19, 2946-2958.
Forman, R., 2002. A user's guide to discrete Morse theory. Séminaire Lotharingien de
Combinatoire [electronic only] 48, B48c, 35 p., electronic only-B48c, 35 p., electronic
only.
Gardumi A. et al., 2016. The effect of spatial resolution on decoding accuracy in fMRI
multivariate pattern analysis. Neuroimage 132, 32-42.
Gómez-Rubio, V., 2016. Spatial Point Patterns: Methodology and Applications with R. Journal
of Statistical Software 75.
Hu, X., Wang, Y., Li, F., Samaras, D., Chen, C., 2021. Topology-Aware Segmentation Using
Discrete Morse Theory. Ninth International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR), Virtual Only. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=LGgdb4TS4Z
Misaki, M., Luh, W. M., Bandettini, P. A., 2013. The effect of spatial smoothing on fMRI
decoding of columnar-level organization with linear support vector machine. J Neurosci
Methods 212, 355-361.
Nobre, A. C., Gitelman, D., Dias, E., Mesulam, M., 2000. Covert visual spatial orienting and
saccades: overlapping neural systems. Neuroimage 11, 210-216.
Ripley, B. D. 1991. Statistical inference for spatial processes. Cambridge university press.
Swisher J. D. et al., 2010. Multiscale pattern analysis of orientation-selective activity in the
primary visual cortex. J Neurosci 30, 325-330 (2010).
 15

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table 1. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) of distance (visual angle in degrees)
of eye-movement in each condition.
Overt Covert
Endogenous 8.90 ± 0.84 0.75 ± 0.42
Exogenous 9.00 ± 0.92 0.83 ± 0.41
 16

Supplementary Table 2. Mean ± SD of behavioral performance in each condition.

Overt Covert
Accuracy (%)
Endogenous 98.2 ± 2.6 92.7 ± 3.2
Exogenous 99.1 ± 1.5 95.4 ± 5.9
RT (ms)
Endogenous 542.1 ± 88.7 617.2 ± 91.8
Exogenous 530.2 ± 78.8 596.2 ± 77.8
RT: reaction time.
 17

Supplementary Table 3. Brain regions that showed positive activation for the contrast of overt-
minus-fixation-baseline.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Superior frontal gyrus a L 6/8 -24 -8 58 36.72 Inf 8168
a
Superior frontal gyrus R 6/8 30 -8 60 30.26 Inf
Precentral gyrus L 6 -56 2 46 18.77 Inf
Precentral gyrus R 6 46 -2 42 17.01 Inf
Inferior parietal lobule L 7/40 -26 -50 54 32.47 Inf
Inferior parietal lobule R 7/40 22 -60 62 28.43 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus L 19 -26 -76 30 25.67 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus R 21 42 -60 12 22.59 Inf
Vermis VII 6 -76 -22 21.27 Inf
Fusiform gyrus L 37 -38 -66 -12 21.24 Inf
Fusiform gyrus R 37 28 -86 -2 20.8 Inf
Cerebellum crus I L -36 -48 -32 20.06 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus R 19 28 -72 34 19.37 Inf
Cerebellum crus I R 38 -54 -30 19.06 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus L 21 -48 -48 10 15.26 Inf
Cerebellum IV V L -4 -56 -6 14.83 Inf
Cerebellum IX L -2 -46 -40 11 7.64
Calcarine cortex L 17 -10 -78 8 10.94 7.62
Supramarginal gyrus L 40 -56 -24 32 10.86 7.59
Calcarine cortex R 17 12 -68 12 10.24 7.34
Thalamus L -22 -28 8 14.95 Inf 5480
Thalamus R 14 -16 8 12.97 Inf
Putamen L -28 0 0 11.22 7.72
Rolandic operculum L -46 0 10 7.61 6.08 53
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was FWE
corrected p < 0.05 (T > 5.08) for the height and k > 10 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent. L:
left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area. For a cluster with multiple local peaks, the number of voxels
(K) in the whole cluster was only listed under the first local peak (also for other activation
tables). a Comprising the frontal eye field (FEF).
 18

Supplementary Table 4. Brain regions that showed positive activation for the contrast of
covert-minus-fixation-baseline.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Superior frontal gyrus a L 6/8 -24 -8 52 37.22 Inf 60367
a
Inferior parietal lobule L 7/40 -26 -52 54 36.95 Inf
Superior frontal gyrus R 6/8 32 -8 60 36.72 Inf
Inferior parietal lobule R 6/8 26 -58 48 29.04 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus R 21 42 -62 12 28.58 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus L 19 -28 -74 30 26.89 Inf
b
Supplementary motor area R 6/32 8 2 64 25.39 Inf
Fusiform gyrus L 37 -40 -64 -12 24.9 Inf
Precentral gyrus R 6 46 -2 40 24.42 Inf
Precentral gyrus L 6 -46 -4 40 22.52 Inf
Cerebellum crus I L -44 -52 -36 22.2 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus R 19 36 -92 -6 21.35 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus L 19 -38 -92 -6 20.98 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus L 21 -46 -50 10 19.75 Inf
Inferior occipital gyrus R 19 42 -64 -12 18.52 Inf
Cerebellum crus I R 8 -74 -24 18.37 Inf
Caudate nucleus L -22 -6 24 17.14 Inf
Caudate nucleus R 24 0 24 16.17 Inf
Vermis IV 4 -56 -8 15.11 Inf
Cerebellum crus II R 46 -52 -40 15.01 Inf
Cerebellum crus IX L -2 -46 -38 14.15 Inf
Thalamus R 14 -16 8 12.56 Inf
Superior temporal gyrus R 20 60 -42 16 11.76 Inf
Anterior insula cortex L -30 20 14 11.38 7.78
Rolandic operculum R 52 8 8 9.5 7.01
Rolandic operculum L -46 0 10 8.15 6.37
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was FWE
corrected p < 0.05 (T > 5.08) for the height and k > 10 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent. L:
left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area. For a cluster with multiple local peaks, the number of voxels
(K) in the whole cluster was only listed under the first local peak (also for other activation
tables). a Comprising the FEF. b Extending to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
 19

Supplementary Table 5. Brain regions that showed positive activation in the conjunction
between the contrasts of overt-minus-fixation-baseline and covert-minus-fixation-baseline.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Superior frontal gyrus a L 6/8 -24 -8 56 36.3 Inf 8127
a
Superior frontal gyrus R 6/8 30 -8 60 30.26 Inf
Precentral gyrus L 6 -48 -4 40 18.09 Inf
Precentral gyrus R 6 46 -2 42 17.01 Inf
Inferior parietal lobule L 7/40 -24 -52 56 32.58 Inf 29869
Inferior parietal lobule R 7/40 22 -60 62 27.54 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus L 19 -26 -74 30 25.59 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus R 21 42 -60 12 22.59 Inf
Fusiform gyrus L 37 -38 -66 -12 21.24 Inf
Cerebellum crus I L -36 -50 -32 19.81 Inf
Mid occipital gyrus R 19 28 -72 34 19.37 Inf
Cerebellum crus I R 8 -74 -24 18.37 Inf
Inferior occipital gyrus R 19 32 -88 -4 18.34 Inf
Cerebellum crus I R 38 -52 -30 18.16 Inf
Mid temporal gyrus L 21 -48 -48 10 15.26 Inf
Vermis IV V -2 -54 -6 12.85 Inf
Cerebellum VIII R 18 -56 -56 12.32 Inf
Cerebellum IX L -2 -46 -40 11 7.64
Supramarginal gyrus L 40 -54 -24 32 10.4 7.4
Thalamus L -20 -10 18 14.79 Inf 4935
Thalamus R 14 -16 8 12.56 Inf
Superior colliculus L -4 -24 -6 9.76 7.13
Rolandic operculum L -46 0 10 7.61 6.08 53
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was FWE
corrected p < 0.05 (T > 5.08) for the height and k > 10 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent. L:
left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area. For a cluster with multiple local peaks, the number of voxels
(K) in the whole cluster was only listed under the first local peak (also for other activation
tables). a Comprising the FEF. b Extending to the right ACC.
 20

Supplementary Table 6. Brain regions that showed significant overt- and covert-specific
activation and significant difference in activation between these two conditions.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Overt-minus-fixation-baseline only
Calcarine cortex L 17 -18 -96 0 14.12 Inf 6737
Calcarine cortex R 17 18 -96 0 13.63 Inf
Lingual gyrus L 18 -16 -72 4 11.19 7.71
Thalamus R 26 -26 -2 10.71 7.53 86
Thalamus L -20 -28 2 9.97 7.22 124
Covert-minus-fixation-baseline only
Supplementary motor area R 6 10 14 52 11.86 Inf 4622
Anterior insular cortex L -30 20 14 11.38 7.78
Anterior insular cortex R 34 18 14 11.3 7.75
a
Anterior cingulate cortex L 32 -12 8 44 9.14 6.85
Superior colliculus R 6 -14 -4 7.39 5.96 16
Superior temporal gyrus R 20 64 -38 12 6.67 5.54 31
Overt > Covert
Calcarine cortex L 17 -18 -64 6 10.92 7.61 7488
Calcarine cortex R 17 12 -84 4 9.57 7.05
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was FWE
corrected p < 0.05 (T > 5.08) for the height and k > 10 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent. L:
left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area. For a cluster with multiple local peaks, the number of voxels
(K) in the whole cluster was only listed under the first local peak (also for other activation
tables). a Extending to the right ACC.
 21

Supplementary Table 7. Classification performance (Mean ± SD) of overt versus covert

orienting based on activation of each ROI using support vector machine (SVM).
Accuracy Precision Recall F1 score
Smoothness Overt Covert Overt Covert Overt Covert
Chance 50.4 ± 0.6% 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ±
level 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
FEF unsmoothed 85.8 ± 4.9% 0.87 ± 0.86 ± 0.87 ± 0.87 ± 0.85 ± 0.86 ±
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
smoothed 75.1 ± 5.7% 0.76 ± 0.75 ± 0.75 ± 0.75 ± 0.75 ± 0.75 ±
0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06
IPS unsmoothed 85.8 ± 4.5% 0.87 ± 0.86 ± 0.86 ± 0.86 ± 0.85 ± 0.86 ±
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04
smoothed 76.4 ± 3.9% 0.77 ± 0.77 ± 0.77 ± 0.77 ± 0.76 ± 0.76 ±
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04
FPN unsmoothed 89.9 ± 4.6% 0.91 ± 0.90 ± 0.91 ± 0.91 ± 0.89 ± 0.90 ±
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04
smoothed 80.7 ± 5.1% 0.81 ± 0.81 ± 0.81 ± 0.81 ± 0.80 ± 0.81 ±
0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
Note: FEF: frontal eye field. IPS: area near and along the intraparietal sulcus. FPN:
frontoparietal network (FEF and IPS combined). All measures were significantly higher than the
corresponding chance levels (ps < .001).
 22

Supplementary Table 8. Classification performance (Mean ± SD) of the cross-subject

classification.
Accuracy Precision Recall F1 score
Overt Covert Overt Covert Overt Covert
Chance level 50.5 ± 0.6% 0.51 ± 0.49 ± 0.51 ± 0.49 ± 0.51± 0.49 ±
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
FEF 55.0 ± 0.7% 0.55 ± 0.56 ± 0.55 ± 0.55 ± 0.54 ± 0.55 ±
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
IPS 54.1 ± 0.8% 0.54 ± 0.54 ± 0.55 ± 0.54 ± 0.54 ± 0.54 ±
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
FPN 55.0 ± 0.7% 0.55 ± 0.56 ± 0.55 ± 0.55 ± 0.54 ± 0.55 ±
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Note: FEF: frontal eye field. IPS: area near and along the intraparietal sulcus. FPN:
frontoparietal network (FEF and IPS combined). All measures were significantly higher than the
corresponding chance levels (ps < .001).
 23

Supplementary Table 9. Classification performance (Mean ± SD) of the cross-cueing

classification.
Accuracy Precision Recall F1 score
Overt Covert Overt Covert Overt Covert
Exogeneous to Chance level 50.5 ± 0.51 ± 0.49 ± 0.51 ± 0.49 ± 0.51 ± 0.49 ±
endogenous 0.6% 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
FEF 69.2 ± 0.69 ± 0.69 ± 0.68± 0.70 ± 0.69 ± 0.69 ±
6.7% 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08
IPS 66.7 ± 0.66 ± 0.67 ± 0.68 ± 0.65 ± 0.67 ± 0.66 ±
8.3% 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09
FPN 71.0 ± 0.71 ± 0.72 ± 0.71 ± 0.71 ± 0.71 ± 0.71 ±
8.9% 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09
Endogenous to Chance level 50.3 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ± 0.50 ±
exogenous 0.4% 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
FEF 69.4 ± 0.69 ± 0.69 ± 0.71 ± 0.67 ± 0.70 ± 0.69 ±
7.4% 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.08
IPS 66.2 ± 0.67 ± 0.66 ± 0.65 ± 0.67 ± 0.65 ± 0.66 ±
6.9% 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09
FPN 71.6 ± 0.72 ± 0.72 ± 0.72 ± 0.70 ± 0.71 ± 0.70 ±
7.7% 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.10
Note: FEF: frontal eye field. IPS: area near and along the intraparietal sulcus. FPN:
frontoparietal network (FEF and IPS combined). All measures were significantly higher than the
corresponding chance levels (ps < .001).
 24

Supplementary Table 10. Proportion (%) of voxels in regions of the FPN that showed weights
significantly different from the null distribution in the MVPA and activation significantly
different from zero in the GLM.
MVPA weights GLM beta values
FEF
Total 95.4 ± 0.5% 1.05 ± 1.04%
Positive 48.5 ± 0.9% 0.80 ± 1.06%
Negative 46.9 ± 1.1% 0.25 ± 0.53%
IPS
Total 95.5 ± 0.5% 0.84 ± 0.84%
Positive 48.4 ± 0.8% 0.64 ± 0.85%
Negative 47.1 ± 0.8% 0.20 ± 0.44%
 25

Supplementary Table 11. Classification performance (Mean ± SD) by activation in the overt-
and covert-preferred voxels.
Accuracy Precision Recall F1 score
Overt Covert Overt Covert Overt Covert
FEF
Overt-preferred voxels 62.0 ± 0.62 ± 0.62 ± 0.60 ± 0.59 ± 0.61 ± 0.62 ±
alone 6.5% 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07
Comparable reference 95.8 ± 0.96 ± 0.96 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.96 ± 0.96 ±
performance A 2.4% 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.07
Covert-preferred voxels 57.9 ± 0.58 ± 0.58 ± 0.57 ± 0.57 ± 0.58 ± 0.58 ±
alone 5.1% 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05
Comparable reference 96.4 ± 0.96 ± 0.97 ± 0.88± 0.88 ± 0.96 ± 0.96 ±
performance B 2.5% 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.02
IPS
Overt-preferred voxels 57.9 ± 0.58 ± 0.58 ± 0.57 ± 0.59 ± 0.57 ± 0.58 ±
alone 3.7% 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05
Comparable reference 87.9 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ±
performance A 6.1% 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Covert-preferred voxels 56.9 ± 0.57 ± 0.57 ± 0.57 ± 0.57 ± 0.57 ± 0.56 ±
alone 3.2% 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.04
Comparable reference 88.4 ± 0.89 ± 0.89 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ± 0.88 ±
performance B 5.8% 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Note: FEF: frontal eye field. IPS: area near and along the intraparietal sulcus. novert: total amount
of the overt preferred voxels. ncovert: total amount of the covert preferred voxels. Comparable
reference performance A: voxels with both response biases included was estimated by randomly
selecting novert voxels regardless of their sign. Comparable reference performance B: voxels with
both response biases included was estimated by randomly selecting ncovert voxels regardless of
their sign.
 26

Supplementary Table 12. Mean ± SD (range) of the numbers and volume of covert- and overt-
preferred sub-clusters identified in Morse decomposition.
No. of sub- Volume of sub-clusters
clusters in No. of in mm3 in isotropic
voxels volume (mm)
FEF
Overt-preferred 273.2 ± 24.9 14.4 ± 3.4 115.0 ± 27.3 4.8 ± 0.4
(154 ~ 364) (10.1 ~ 24.8) (80.6 ~ 198.4) (4.3 ~ 5.8)
Chance 39.6 ± 8.1 97.9 ± 24.2 783.2 ± 193.3 9.2 ± 0.7
level (22 ~ 56) (66.4 ~ 169.6) (531.0 ~ 1356.7) (8.1 ~ 11.1)
Covert-preferred 265.1 ± 45.0 14.2 ± 2.7 113.6 ± 21.6 4.8 ± 0.3
(161 ~ 341) (11.0 ~ 22.4) (88.1 ~ 179.0) (4.5 ~ 5.6)
Chance 38.8 ± 8.4 99.6 ± 20.3 797.2 ± 162.4 9.2 ± 0.6
level (26 ~ 62) (60.6 ~ 143.5) (485.0 ~ 1148.3) (7.9 ~ 10.5)
IPS
Overt-preferred 324.6 ± 51.9 14.2 ± 2.3 113.9 ± 19.1 4.8 ± 0.3
(230 ~ 411) (10.9 ~ 19.7) (87.5 ~ 157.6) (4.4 ~ 5.4)
Chance 54.8 ± 8.2 83.4 ± 13.8 666.9 ± 110.3 8.7 ± 0.5
level (40 ~ 66) (66.2 ~ 113.2) (529.7 ~ 905.2) (8.1 ~ 9.7)
Covert-preferred 330.1 ± 52.5 13.8 ± 2.3 110.5 ± 18.6 4.8 ± 0.3
(233 ~ 443) (10.1 ~ 19.0) (80.5 ~ 151.9) (4.3 ~ 5.3)
Chance 55.6 ± 10.2 83.1 ± 14.5 664.5 ± 115.7 8.7 ± 0.5
level (43 ~ 84) (52.7 ~ 106.6) (421.6 ~ 852.5) (7.5 ~ 9.5)
 27

Supplementary Table 13. Brain regions that showed significant difference in the comparison of
functional connectivity using voxels with positive weights versus voxels with negative weights
in the FEF as the seed.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Voxels with positive weights > voxels with negative weights
Mid occipital gyrus L 19 -28 -82 2 5.45 4.04 346
Cerebellum VIII R 12 -74 -50 4.54 3.59 77
Cerebellum VIII L -24 -66 -52 4.42 3.52 241
Cerebellum Crus I R 34 -66 -30 3.73 3.12 69
Cerebellum VI R 10 -56 -26 3.59 3.03 82
Cerebellum Crus I R 40 -52 -36 3.25 2.80 57
Vermis VII 4 -76 -22 3.11 2.71 91
Voxels with negative weights > voxels with positive weights
Fusiform gyrus R 37 30 -48 -12 3.96 3.26 167
Superior temporal gyrus L 22 -40 -38 18 3.56 3.01 97
Supplementary motor area L 6 -6 -6 58 3.56 3.01 74
Superior temporal gyrus R 22 68 -26 16 3.41 2.91 112
Postcentral gyrus R 3 58 -22 48 3.28 2.83 239
Postcentral gyrus R 3 30 -36 56 3.25 2.81
Paracentral lobule R 4 4 -22 56 3.21 2.78 127
Precentral gyrus R 6 18 -28 66 3.01 2.64 88
Precuneus R 23 16 -62 24 2.94 2.59 58
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was
uncorrected p < 0.01 (T > 2.58) for the height and k > 50 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent.
L: left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area.
 28

Supplementary Table 14. Brain regions that showed significant difference in the comparison of
functional connectivity using voxels with positive weights versus voxels with negative weights
in the IPS as the seed.
Regions L/R BA x y z T Z K
Mid temporal pole L 38 -40 14 -28 6.39 4.44 75
Precentral gyrus L 6 -22 -18 72 5.95 4.26 779
Precuneus L 7 -12 -40 62 4.26 3.43
Cuneus R 18 8 -70 22 4.98 3.82 5705
Paracentral lobule R 4 4 -22 56 4.97 3.81
Lingual gyrus R 18 16 -40 -4 4.26 3.43
Precentral gyrus R 7 4 -46 54 3.55 3.00
Lingual gyrus L 18 -12 -60 2 3.27 2.82
Superior temporal gyrus L 22 -42 -12 0 4.79 3.72 265
Superior frontal gyrus R 9 18 38 54 4.69 3.67 259
Hippocampus L 30 -26 -24 -12 4.60 3.62 213
Superior frontal gyrus L 9 -24 34 48 4.50 3.57 203
Mid temporal gyrus R 21 52 -2 -26 4.49 3.56 394
Superior temporal pole R 38 42 18 -30 4.45 3.54 92
Superior frontal gyrus R 8 20 12 50 4.25 3.43 147
Fusiform gyrus L 37 -36 -34 -24 4.01 3.29 89
Superior temporal gyrus R 22 48 -32 20 3.94 3.24 418
Hippocampus R 30 28 -26 -12 3.91 3.23 199
Rolandic operculum L -38 -28 20 3.88 3.21 485
Inferior frontal gyrus R 47 46 22 -6 3.83 3.18 215
Mid temporal gyrus R 21 66 -52 8 3.80 3.16 67
Postcentral gyrus R 4 24 -32 68 3.77 3.15 417
Postcentral gyrus L 4 -50 -18 46 3.74 3.12 177
Calcarine cortex L 17 -2 -80 -4 3.74 3.12 317
Anterior cingulate cortex R 32 10 50 24 3.58 3.02 547
Superior temporal gyrus R 22 46 -12 0 3.48 2.96 222
Superior temporal gyrus L 22 -56 -2 -12 3.27 2.82 133
Precentral gyrus R 6 40 -18 52 3.24 2.80 64
Note: The number of voxels in each cluster was only listed under its first local peak. Regions in
each cluster are listed in a descending order based on their peak Z value. The threshold was
uncorrected p < 0.01 (T > 2.58) for the height and k > 50 of 2 × 2 × 2 mm voxels for the extent.
L: left; R: right. BA: Brodmann area.
 29

Supplementary Figures
Negative domain Threshold = -3 Threshold = -2 Threshold = -1.5 Threshold = -0.5 Final component set

Decomposition

No. of components
Positive domain 1 2 3

No. of components
-5 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Supplementary Figure 1. Illustration of the Morse decomposition procedure for a 2-D

image. Decomposition based on discrete Morse decomposition was applied to a 2-D images
composed of 10 ´ 10 pixels. Values in these pixels ranged from -5 to 5. The image was
decomposed into a negative domain including all pixels with values less than 0, and a positive
domain including all pixels with values greater than 0. Values in pixels that were not included in
each domain were set as 0. For the negative domain, persistent threshold was increased from -5
to 0. Components comprised of pixels with values below the current persistent threshold
connected to pixels surrounding each local minimum (marked as grey asterisks) were identified.
The final component set at the persistent threshold of 0 included the stable manifolds for all local
minima. The same procedure was applied to the negative function of the positive domain to
identify the unstable manifolds for all local maxima. The two final component sets were
combined as the Morse decomposition of the image.
 30

a b c d 1.00 e
0.75

G function

K function
r
d 0.50

0.25

0
r r

Supplementary Figure 2. Illustration of spatial statistics. (a) A Poisson process composted by

30 points in 2D. Area with the dashed grey circle illustrated the circle with a radius of r centering
at the point in orange, and the point in green is its nearest neighbor in this circle. A highly
clustering process (b) and a highly dispersed process (c) each composted by 30 points. The G
function (d) and K function (e) of these processes, with the grey lines for the Poisson process, the
red lines for the clustering process, and the blue lines for the highly dispersed process.
 31

a b

0 35 0 35
c d

Conjunction Overt only Covert only Covert > Overt Overt > Covert

Supplementary Figure 3. Conventional general linear modeling (GLM) results. Brain

regions that showed significant activation in the contrasts of overt-minus-fixation-baseline (a)
and covert-minus-fixation-baseline (b). Colormap indicates the T value. (c) Brain regions
showed significant activation in conjunction and disjunction between these two contrasts. Violet:
conjunction. Light blue: overt specific activation. Magenta: covert specific activation. (d) Brain
regions showed significant activation in the contrasts of overt > covert (blue) and covert > overt
(red). The frontal and parietal clusters of the frontoparietal network (FPN) identified in the
conjunction analysis was highlighted as the white and green dashed contours, respectively.
 32

Cue Type Endogenous

1.5 1.5 Exogeneous

Regional activation

Regional activation
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
Overt Covert Overt Covert
Left FEF Right FEF
1.6 1.6

Regional activation

Regional activation
1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0 0
Overt Covert Overt Covert
Left IPS Right IPS

Supplementary Figure 4. Averaged regional activation in each region of the FPN in each
condition. FEF: the frontal cluster of containing the frontal eye filed. IPS: the parietal cluster of
the area near and along the intraparietal sulcus.
 33

Supplementary Figure 5. Univariate activation map of the overt versus covert contrast in
the FPN for each participant. The cluster of the FEF and IPS was highlighted as the areas
within white and green dashed contours, respectively. Blue: overt > covert. Red: covert > overt.
 34

S3 S4

S5 S6

S7 S8

S9 S10

S11 S12

S13 S14

S15 S16

S17

Supplementary Figure 6. Weight maps of the overt versus covert classification on pattern
of activation in the FEF for participants S3 to S17. The cluster of the FEF was highlighted as
the areas within white dashed contours. Blue: voxels with weight values significantly below
zeros (overt-preferred). Red: voxels with weight values significantly above zeros (cover-
preferred).
 35

S3 S4

S5 S6

S7 S8

S9 S10

S11 S12

S13 S14

S15 S16

S17

Supplementary Figure 7. Weight maps of the overt versus covert classification on pattern
of activation in the IPS for each participants S3 to S17. The cluster of the IPS was highlighted
as the areas within green dashed contours. Blue: voxels with weight values significantly below
zeros (overt-preferred). Red: voxels with weight values significantly above zeros (covert-
preferred).
 36

S3 S4

S5 S6

S7 S8

S9 S10

S11 S12

S13 S14

S15 S16

S17

Supplementary Figure 8. Weight maps of the overt versus covert classification on pattern
of activation in the FPN for each participants S3 to S17. The weight maps were generated
from the classification based on all voxels in the entire FPN. The cluster of the FEF and IPS was
highlighted as the areas within the white and green dashed contours, respectively. Blue: voxels
with weight values significantly below zeros (overt-preferred). Red: voxels with weight values
significantly above zeros (covert-preferred). The weight maps generated from the classification
based on each ROI were highly similar to the weights in the corresponding ROI generated from
 37

the classification based on the entire FPN (FEF: r = .94 ± .01%, IPS: r = .95 ± .01%; p < .001 for
each participant).
a 1.0 1.0 b 1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

G (r)

G (r)
G (r)

G (r)
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
r (voxel) r (voxel) r (voxel) r (voxel)
4 4 4 4
c 1.5
x 10
1.5
x 10 d 1.5 x 10 1.5
x 10

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

K (r)
K (r)

K (r)

K (r)
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0 0
1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10
r (voxel) r (voxel) r (voxel) r (voxel)
within-type distribution cross-type distribution
95% confidence intervals 95% confidence intervals baseline distribution

Supplementary Figure 9. Spatial statistics for the decomposed clusters. Estimated G

functions for the FEF(a) and for the IPS (b). Estimated K functions (c) for the FEF and for the
IPS (d). The G and K functions were as a function of radius (r) centered at each local extreme
(source). Purple lines: within-type functions; green lines: cross-type functions. The lines in a
lighter color represent the 95% confidence intervals for each purple and green line, and the black
dashed line represents the baseline G and K functions. Left panel: G and K functions with local
minima as the sources (within type: overt-to-overt; cross-type: covert-to-overt). Right panel: G
and K functions with local maxima as the sources (within type: covert-to-covert; cross-type:
overt-to-covert).
 38

a b

Supplementary Figure 10. Results of the psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis.

Modulation of the effect of Orienting (overt minus covert) on the functional connectivity
between regions of the FPN (seed regions) and other brain regions was estimated using the
psychophysiological interaction analysis. (a) FEF as the seed. (b) IPS as the seed. Covert-
preferred voxels showed a significantly stronger positive modulation effect than overt- preferred
voxels in regions highlighted in red, and voxels with a reversed effect were highlighted in blue.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.G., 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power
3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41, 1149-1160.
Lakens, D., 2021. Sample size justification.