I've checked the original scripts following the link you provided and it seems they are scaling by the overall sd, no the column-specific sd.
I guess changing the lines
len_m<-(len_m-mean(len_m, na.rm=TRUE))/apply(len_m, 2, sd, na.rm=TRUE)
gcc_m<-(gcc_m-mean(gcc_m, na.rm=TRUE))/apply(gcc_m, 2, sd, na.rm=TRUE)
by
len_m<-(len_m-mean(len_m, na.rm=TRUE))/sd(len_m, na.rm=TRUE)
gcc_m<-(gcc_m-mean(gcc_m, na.rm=TRUE))/sd(gcc_m, na.rm=TRUE)
in the normLGF
definition would do the trick (which I've already done in my local version of the package).
I agree with you that the differences at the "cell" level (x_{i,j}) could be minor. However, I don't know what is the advantage of scaling by the column-specific sd instead of the overall sd.
In any case, thanks for your quick responses.
:)