Figure 11.

Distributions of calibration errors, corrected for each participant's bias. Errors were computed as described above and then corrected for the median error in x- and y-directions of the respective participant for dot appearing at the vanishing point. We see a markedly improved accuracy compared to the uncorrected data (median error: 2.8${}^{\circ }$), indicating that within-participant effects were unproblematic for the measures and analyses considered. This improvement was especially marked in the center of the display (2.2${}^{\circ }$) compared to the periphery (3.4${}^{\circ }$), which is unsurprising given our choice of correcting for the error at the lower central dot. Notation as in Figure 10.