That was a direct consequence of my screwing up in our 2013 paper when I wrote 'diameter' instead of 'radius'. 🤦 At least this way you can check on the stimulus image if the numbers actually make sense (and I hope I didn't make more mistakes... 😉)

It's an interesting case study. If modern code-sharing practices were standard when you published the original paper, the authors of the follow-up paper may have spotted the problem in the code, instead of this multi-paper back and forth.