Overview of analytical steps. (A) We began with previously identified sensory-biased regions in caudolateral frontal cortex, along the PCS and IFS (Michalka et al. 2015; Noyce et al. 2017). Within each individual subject, that subject’s auditory- and visual-biased regions were used as seeds to compute seed-to-whole-hemisphere resting-state functional connectivity. We thresholded (see Methods) and z-transformed the resulting connectivity maps before taking the difference between auditory-biased and visual-biased connectivity. The resulting differential connectivity maps were used to identify candidate sensory-biased regions (Fig. 3A). We assessed each candidate region using split-half reliability of task activation (Fig. 3B) and hand-scoring the region’s appearance in individual subjects (Supplementary Table S1). (B) Regions that exhibited consistent sensory-biased WM recruitment both within and across subjects were denoted as reliable regions; we drew subject-specific labels for each region in each subject for analysis (Fig. 4). We reported the mean location and size (Fig. 4 and Table 1), the degree of WM-specific recruitment (Fig. 5), and used hierarchical clustering of seed-to-seed functional connectivity to investigate the structure of sensory-biased networks (Fig. 6). (C) Regions that did not exhibit consistent sensory-biased recruitment were investigated using the candidate search space labels; we again reported the degree of WM-specific recruitment in each (Fig. 7).