Table 1. Numerical comparison with psychophysical and neurophysiological data.

	Eccentricity	Shear Dev.		H-H Dev.		V1 RF Size
	[deg]	θ[deg]	rmse[arcmin]	H[deg]	rmse[arcmin]	rmse[arcmin]
Random Fix.	[−1.6, 1.6]	1.26 ± 0.12	—	0.12 ± 0.03	1.80	—
Subjects’ Fix.		0.45 ± 0.09	—	0.73 ± 0.05	1.12	—
Psycho. Data		—	—	1.51 ± 0.23	—	—
Random Fix.	[−6.0, 6.0]	1.19 ± 0.10	0.62	0.13 ± 0.06	4.73	56.40
Subjects’ Fix.		1.41 ± 0.13	0.38	0.26 ± 0.05	2.35	15.37
Psycho. Data		1.66 ± 0.88	—	0.28 ± 0.09	—	—

The Helmholtz shear deviation, Hering-Hillebrand deviation (H-H) and V1 receptive field size derived by our statistics (for random and subjects’ fixations) are reported against the data available in psychophysical and neurophysiological literature. For what concern the Helmholtz shear deviation, we compared the value of the shear angle θ (mean and std) with the angles measured in refs ⁴⁸,⁴⁹, whereas for the Hering-Hillebrand (H-H) deviation we computed the values of H (mean and std)⁴²,⁵⁰, for a comparison with data from ref. 43. We also reported the rmse between the psychophysical measurement of corresponding points and our predictions. Following⁴³, the evaluation was repeated considering two different ranges of eccentricity, i.e. [−1.6°, 1.6] and [−6°, 6°], in order to better characterize the difference between the central and the peripheral field of view. Regarding the receptive filed size, we computed the rmse between our prediction and the data reported in ref. 63. For a more detailed explanation, see Methods.