little dependence upon the choice of overlap function and practically no discernible effect upon the curves. The results for the two relativistic wave functions, NLSH and HS, are very similar but the fitted $p_m$ distributions for the NIKHEF wave function tend to be too narrow, especially for the $1p$ shell. Consequently, the $1p$ normalization factors listed in Table \[table:normperp\_EMAnoSV\] are systematically smaller for the NIKHEF wave function than for the NLSH or HS wave functions. These normalization factors are correlated well with the peak of the momentum distribution, with the NLSH results largest and NIKHEF results smallest.

![EMA-noSV calculations for $^{12}$C$(e,e^\prime p)$ are compared with quasiperpendicular data for $0.6 < Q^2 < 1.8$ (GeV/$c$)$^2$ from JLab . In each panel the top set of curves shows the inclusive $10 \leq E_m \leq 80$ MeV bin scaled by a factor of 20, the middle set shows the $p$-shell bin with $15 \leq E_m \leq 25$ MeV, and the bottom set shows the $s$-shell bin with $30 \leq E_m \leq 50$ MeV scaled by a factor of 0.1. Solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves are based upon NLSH, HS, and NIKHEF wave functions, respectively. []{data-label="fig:Dutta-EMAnoSV"}](emanosv_sigred1.ps){width="5.0in"}

Similar comparisons are shown in Figs. \[EMA:Saclay\_kin2\]-\[EMA:Tokyo\] for 