Anyway, I find it pointless to discuss these things further, let's just enjoy the rest of the weekend and let the unbiased reviewers think about it :) Thanks for the feedback again, have a good week

To clarify, I wasn't in correspondence with you. Nonetheless, I find it only fair that my colleagues took the values at face value, assuming no misreporting. In the end, it's not anyone else's responsibility to ensure that your description matches your figure, but yours.

I wish you a great Sunday

I cannot talk on behalf of someone else, but imo, this is rather on your side. I could understand a 'representative' figure not matching the description in Methods, but the other way around, simply misreporting, is rather problematic for science. Not everyone may contact you before replication.

In our description, we wrote EB2 was "strongly inspired" by your work, which is only fair considering that size parameters were taken from the description in 2013 paper.
Our figure matches our own stimulus description (no luminance info on the ms, but it is simply white as seen in the figure).

🚒🧑‍🚒🧯Our stimuli do match the description actually, unlike in Schwarzkopf & Rees, 2013. We accepted Prof. Schwarzkopf's apology on this:
pubpeer.com/publications...
Have a wonderful weekend :)