Supplementary Materials

All paired comparisons for Experiment 1 are listed in Table S.1. The remaining paired

comparisons showed that, in the OWFA, Different betas were greater than those for the RVF and

LVF change conditions; this was also the case in the OFA. Betas in the RVF and LVF change

conditions were greater than those in the Same condition in the OWFA; and betas in the LVF

condition were greater than those in the Same condition, but betas in the RVF condition did not

significantly differ from those in the Same condition in the OFA.

The remaining paired comparisons for the VWFA and rVWFA showed that, in contrast to the

OWFA paired comparisons results, Different betas were greater than those for the LVF change

condition but not the RVF change condition; for the rVWFA, Different betas were greater than

those for both the LVF change condition and the RVF change condition. Betas in the RVF and

LVF change conditions were greater than those in the Same condition in both the VWFA and the

rVWFA.

Table S.1. Paired t values for Experiment 1 (silhouettes)

Paired t value (N = 12) OWFA OFA VWFA rVWFADifferent vs. Same 8.49 7.53 5.19 6.25

RVF change vs. LVF change 4.40 -7.79 2.80 -5.58

Different vs. RVF change 3.97 10.09 1.61 4.62

Different vs. LVF change 7.17 2.44 3.81 2.38

RVF change vs. Same 5.28 1.96 4.51 2.54

LVF change vs. Same 2.40 6.21 5.33 5.74

Note: Bonforroni corrected p < .05; Uncorrected p < .05.

All paired comparisons for the reanalysis of Strother et al. (2016) are listed in Table S.2. The

remaining paired comparisons showed that, in the OWFA, Different betas were greater than

those for the RVF and LVF change conditions; this was not the case in the OFA (Different betas

= LVF change betas). While both the OWFA and OFA paired comparisons results are consistent

with the results of Strother et al. (2016), the results are only partially consistent with the paired

comparison results for Experiment 1 (the OFA showed significant differences between Different

betas and those in the LVF and RVF change conditions). Betas in the RVF and LVF change

conditions were greater than those in the Same condition in both the OWFA and the OFA.

The remaining paired comparisons for the VWFA showed that, Different betas were greater than

those for the LVF change condition but not the RVF change condition; for the rVWFA, Different

betas were greater than those for the RVF change condition but not the LVF change condition.

Betas in the RVF and LVF change conditions were greater than those in the Same condition in

both the VWFA and the rVWFA.

Table S.2. Paired t values for reanalyzed results of Strother et al. (2016)

Paired t value (N = 12) OWFA OFA VWFA rVWFADifferent vs. Same 8.96 7.56 9.92 5.90

RVF change vs. LVF change 0.40 -4.59 0.04 -3.90

Different vs. RVF change 4.21 3.94 2.05 3.94

Different vs. LVF change 3.19 -0.01 3.77 0.97RVF change vs. Same 6.68 3.66 6.15 2.93

LVF change vs. Same 6.47 5.81 7.19 4.95

Note: Bonforroni corrected p < .05; Uncorrected p < .05.

All paired comparisons for Experiment 2 are listed in Table S.3. The remaining paired

comparisons showed that, in the OWFA, Different betas were greater than those for the LVF

change condition but not for the RVF change condition; in the OFA, we observed an opposite

effect, that Different betas were greater than those for the RVF change condition but not for the

LVF change condition; Betas in the RVF and LVF change conditions were greater than those in

the Same condition in both the OWFA and the OFA, except for in the OWFA, LVF change betas

did not significantly differ from Same betas.

The remaining paired comparisons for the VWFA showed that Different betas were greater than

those in the LVF change condition but not than those in the RVF change condition, as observed

for Experiment 1 and the reanalyzed data presented earlier. For the rVWFA, Different betas were

greater than those for the RVF change condition but not the LVF change condition. Betas in the

RVF and LVF change conditions were greater than those in the Same condition in both the

VWFA and the rVWFA.

Table S.3. Paired t values for Experiment 2 (Japanese characters)

Paired t value (N = 12) OWFA OFA VWFA rVWFADifferent vs. Same 5.73 5.98 4.01 5.41

RVF change vs. LVF change 4.58 -4.92 3.88 -2.57

Different vs. RVF change 0.84 3.93 -2.57 2.78

Different vs. LVF change 4.25 -2.05 2.82 -0.73RVF change vs. Same 5.91 3.77 4.66 3.80

LVF change vs. Same 1.76 7.72 2.88 4.27

Note: Bonforroni corrected p < .05; Uncorrected p < .05.

We summarize comparisons of the results in the previous three tables (Table S.1, S.2, and S.3) in

Table S.4. The OWFA and VWFA showed similar results across three experiments, except that

the VWFA did not show greater responses to the Different condition than the RVF change

condition, and it showed greater responses to the Different condition than the LVF change

condition. This indicates weaker response to ipsilateral half change stimuli in the VWFA,

whereas OWFA only showed this effect for the Japanese character stimuli. In addition, the OFA

and rVWFA behaved similarly across experiments. In short, despite differences in some of the

paired comparisons reported here and those reported earlier, both the VWFA and rVWFA (like

the OWFA and OFA) showed a contralateral bias in Experiments 1 and 2, in contrast to the

absence of contralateral bias in the OWFA in the reanalyzed data of Strother et al. (2016).

Table S.4. Comparison of Tables S.1, S.2, and S.3

Paired t value (N = 12) OWFA OFA VWFA rVWFADifferent vs. Same +++ +++ +++ +++RVF change vs. LVF change +0+ - - - +0+ - - -Different vs. RVF change ++0 +++ 00- +++Different vs. LVF change +++ +00 +++ +00RVF change vs. Same +++ 0++ +++ +++

LVF change vs. Same ++0 +++ +++ +++

Note: + significantly larger; - significantly smaller; 0 no difference. Order of the sign: silhouettes, word, and Japanese characters

Additional whole brain analyses

As shown in Figure 3 (main text), repetition suppression was observed in both left and right

ventral occipitotemporal cortex (vOTC) for all three experiments using a threshold of q(FDR)

< .05 for Experiment 1 and Strother et al., and p < .005 uncorrected for Experiment 2. We further

explored lateralization of repetition suppression at a more restrictive threshold of q(FDR) < .005

for Experiment 1 and Strother et al. 2016, and p < .0005 uncorrected for Experiment 2.

Figure S.1. Results of a Different > Same contrast for each experiment. Thresholds correspond to q(FDR) < .005 for (a) and (b), and to p < .0005 for (c). Both the left and right inferior occipital gyrus showed repetition suppression in Experiment 1 (a). The left occipital gyrus, the left fusiform gyrus, and the right posterior fusiform gyrus showed repetition suppression in the data from Strother et al. (2016; b). Both the left and right inferior occipital gyrus and the right fusiform gyrus showed repetition suppression in Experiment 2 (c).

Figure S.2. Coronal view of results from Figure S.1. Repetition suppression extended to the right anterior fusiform gyrus in Experiment 1, left anterior fusiform (consistent with general location of the VWFA) in Strother et al. (b), and right anterior fusiform in Experiment 2 (c).

In Experiment 1 (Figure S.1a and S.2a), we observed repetition suppression in the left inferior

occipital gyrus (x = -36, y = -82, z = -2; Figure S.1a), the right inferior occipital gyrus (x = 24, y

= -82, z = -11; Figure S.1a) and the right fusiform gyrus (x = 38, y = -51, z = -17; Figure S.2a),

but not in left fusiform gyrus. Additionally, the repetition suppression extended to more anterior

region than the rVWFA (y = -59; Figure S.2a). As before, we counted the activated voxels within

the left and right hemispheres, and we found that the right hemisphere (numbers of voxels =

4138) showed more activation than the left hemisphere (numbers of voxels = 3555). In short,

these results suggest an overall right lateralization for silhouettes. These results show that

repetition suppression was not limited to our ROIs, and importantly, indicate right-lateralized

repetition suppression in Experiment 1 (silhouettes) for anterior fusiform cortex, but not in more

posterior areas of cortex, including the OWFA and OFA.

Again using a more restrictive threshold of q(FDR) < .005 (as compared to q(FDR) < .05 in

Figure 3) on the reanalyzed data from Strother et al. (2016), we observed activation in left

inferior occipital gyrus (x = -36, y = -85, z = -2; Figure S.1b), right posterior fusiform gyrus (x =

39, y = -64, z = -14; Figure S.1b), and left fusiform gyrus (x = -42, y = -52, z = -11; Figure S.2b).

We did not observe any activation in the right hemisphere in the vicinity of either the OFA or

rVWFA. This is consistent with the ROI analysis which showed a left lateralization in the

VWFA. Again, we conducted a voxel counts for each hemisphere, which suggested that there

were more voxels in the left hemisphere (numbers of voxels = 2164) than in the right hemisphere

(numbers of voxels = 748). Thus, these results indicate an overall left lateralization of repetition

suppression for words.

In Experiment 2 we employed an even more liberal threshold (p < .0005, uncorrected; but more

conservative than that used in Figure 3c) because overall repetition suppression was considerably

weaker than that observed in Experiment 1 and the reanalyzed results of Strother et al. Peak

voxels were found in the left inferior occipital gyrus (x = -39, y = -85, z = -5; Figure S.1c), the

right inferior occipital gyrus (x = 27, y = -82, z = -11; Figure S.1c), and the right fusiform gyrus

(x = 39, y = -69, z = -5; Figure S.2c). Note that repetition suppression extended to anterior

fusiform gyrus (y = -52; Figure S.2c), as it did in Experiment 1 (Figure S.2a). Again, we did not

found any activation in the left fusiform gyrus, indicating right lateralization in the fusiform

gyrus for repetition suppression for Japanese strings. Voxel counts showed that there were 2690

voxels in the right hemisphere, which was larger than those in the left hemisphere (numbers of

voxels = 2073). In short, we observed right lateralization for Japanese characters, even stronger

than that observed in Experiment 1 (silhouettes), and clearly opposite to the left-lateralization

observed for words.