Reviewer #2:
In this paper, Numssen and co-workers focus on the functional differences between hemispheres to investigate the "domain-role" of IPL in different types of mental processes. They employ multivariate pattern-learning algorithms to assess the specific involvement of two IPL subregions in three tasks: an attentional task (Attention), a semantic task (Semantics) and a social task (Social cognition). The authors describe how, when involved in different tasks, each right and left IPL subregion recruits a different pattern of connected areas.
The employed tasks are "well established", and the results confirm previous findings. However, the novelty of the paper lies in the fact that the authors use these results as a tool to observe IPL activity when involved in different domains of cognition.
The methodology is sound, well explained in the method section, the analyses are appropriate, and the results clear and well explained in the text and in graphic format.
However, a solid experimental design is required to provide strong results. To the reviewer's view, the employed design can provide interesting results about functional connectivity, but not about the functional role of IPL in the investigated functions.
I think the study would be correct and much more interesting if only based on functional connectivity data. Note that rewriting the paper accordingly would lead to a thorough discussion about how anatomical circuits are differently recruited based on different cognitive demands and about the variable role of cortical regions in functional tasks. This issue is neglected in the present discussion, and this concept is in disagreement with the main results, suggesting (probably beyond the intention of the authors) that different parts of the right and left IPL are the areas responsible for the studied functions.
Major points:
1) The 3 chosen tasks explore functions that are widespread in the brain, and are not specifically aimed at investigating IPL. The results (see. e.g. fig 1) confirm this idea, but the authors specifically focus on IPL. This seems a rather arbitrary and not justified choice. If they want to explore the lateralization issue, they should consider the whole set of involved areas or use tasks showing all their maximal activation in IPL.
2) The authors aims to study lateralization using an attentional task, considering the violation of a prevision (invalid>valid), a linguistic task, looking for an activation related to word identification (word>pseudoword) and a social task, considering correct perspective taking (false belief>true belief), but they do not consider that in all cases a movement (key press) is required. It is well known that IPL is a key area also for creating motor commands and guiding movements. Accordingly, the lateralization bias observed could be due more to the unbalance between effectors while issuing the motor command, than to a different involvement of IPL regions in the specific tasks functions.
3) Like point 2, the position of keys is also crucial if the authors want to explore lateralization. This is especially important if one considers that IPL plays a major role in spatial attention (e.g. Neglect syndrome). In the Methods, the authors simply say "Button assignments were randomized across subjects and kept identical across sessions", this should be explained in more detail.
4) The authors show to know well the anatomical complexity of IPL, however their results are referred to two large-multiareal-regions. This seems to the reader at odds with all the descriptions related to fig.2. If they don't find any more subtle distinction within these 2 macro-regions, they should at least discuss this discrepancy.
5) The part about Task-specific network connectivity is indeed very interesting, I would suggest to the authors to focus exclusively on this part. (Note that the results of this part seems to confirm that only the linguistic task is able to show a clear lateralization).
