Fou 1978

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		17	0.68	12	0.01	27	0.06	21	0.38	31	0.30	29	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.51	88	0.00	74	0.05	57	0.05	80	0.03	74	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.66	5	0.02	31	0.07	32	0.24	35	0.21	38	0.22
Bacha 2000		31	0.64	31	0.00	37	0.05	38	0.13	9	0.45	34	0.24
Badura 1965		46	0.57	35	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	31	0.32	50	0.13
Barbosa 1983		64	0.51	66	0.00	38	0.04	42	0.11	20	0.30	43	0.18
Biret 1990		26	0.66	58	0.00	34	0.07	29	0.30	28	0.27	32	0.28
Blet 2003		32	0.64	64	0.00	40	0.06	36	0.16	17	0.35	35	0.24
Block 1995		41	0.59	41	0.00	43	0.04	39	0.12	16	0.35	39	0.20
Blumental 1952		69	0.49	24	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.03	89	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.66	40	0.00	8	0.12	14	0.41	13	0.53	10	0.47
Brailowsky 1960		24	0.66	30	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.12	14	0.43	36	0.23
Bunin 1987		75	0.48	77	0.00	82	0.04	66	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.04
Bunin 1987b		77	0.47	55	0.00	81	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04
Chiu 1999		28	0.65	57	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.27	13	0.48	23	0.36
Cohen 1997		59	0.53	78	0.00	63	0.04	77	0.04	4	0.51	48	0.14
Cortot 1951		80	0.45	65	0.00	84	0.04	79	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.04
Csalog 1996		72	0.48	29	0.00	53	0.04	67	0.04	22	0.35	51	0.12
Czerny 1949		76	0.47	86	0.00	71	0.04	80	0.04	61	0.05	76	0.04
Czerny 1990		40	0.59	43	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	44	0.09	62	0.07
Duchoud 2007		61	0.52	38	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	55	0.05	77	0.04
Ezaki 2006		11	0.70	10	0.01	20	0.09	26	0.32	31	0.29	31	0.30
Falvay 1989		4	0.73	7	0.02	15	0.09	19	0.38	4	0.64	7	0.49
Farrell 1958		34	0.62	70	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.26	53	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.48	59	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	85	0.03	87	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.72	2	0.19	3	0.27	4	0.65	6	0.54	3	0.59
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		38	0.60	23	0.00	19	0.07	25	0.33	17	0.43	21	0.38
Friedman 1923		88	0.26	83	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1923b		87	0.26	89	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	71	0.05	80	0.04
Friedman 1930		85	0.34	76	0.00	86	0.05	58	0.05	47	0.07	63	0.06
Garcia 2007		55	0.53	87	0.00	65	0.05	56	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.05
Garcia 2007b		78	0.46	71	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	51	0.05	82	0.04
Gierzod 1998		44	0.58	34	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.16	41	0.15	46	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		35	0.61	42	0.00	22	0.06	24	0.33	12	0.50	18	0.41
Groot 1988		15	0.68	45	0.00	23	0.09	16	0.40	6	0.55	11	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.65	11	0.01	9	0.10	11	0.44	30	0.28	28	0.35
Hatto 1993		67	0.50	84	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.22	56	0.09
Hatto 1997		58	0.53	72	0.00	49	0.04	63	0.04	33	0.17	59	0.08
Horowitz 1949		39	0.60	32	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	27	0.38	42	0.18
Indjic 1988		62	0.52	63	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	29	0.20	54	0.11
Kapell 1951		68	0.50	51	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	83	0.03	86	0.03
Kissin 1993		1	0.79	1	0.26	1	0.26	2	0.66	5	0.69	1	0.67
Kushner 1989		14	0.69	28	0.00	5	0.11	5	0.52	11	0.48	6	0.50
Luisada 1991		13	0.69	44	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.42	20	0.44	15	0.43
Lushtak 2004		10	0.70	13	0.01	25	0.10	23	0.36	18	0.34	26	0.35
Malcuzynski 1961		42	0.59	33	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	33	0.17	58	0.08
Magaloff 1978		30	0.65	75	0.00	26	0.06	28	0.30	14	0.42	25	0.35
Magin 1975		37	0.60	8	0.02	30	0.07	31	0.25	20	0.30	33	0.27
Michalowski 1933		86	0.32	61	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		3	0.76	4	0.13	2	0.27	3	0.65	3	0.64	2	0.64
Mohovich 1999		6	0.72	67	0.00	6	0.10	10	0.45	12	0.52	9	0.48
Moravec 1969		73	0.48	73	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	67	0.03	84	0.03
Morozova 2008		18	0.68	80	0.00	14	0.09	17	0.39	13	0.34	24	0.36
Neighaus 1950		22	0.66	49	0.00	24	0.09	20	0.38	22	0.32	27	0.35
Niedzielski 1931		84	0.35	82	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.57	47	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.14	41	0.14	47	0.14
Osinska 1989		33	0.64	14	0.01	18	0.08	18	0.39	24	0.35	22	0.37
Pachmann 1927		27	0.66	52	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.21	1	0.67	20	0.38
Paderewski 1930		43	0.58	74	0.00	54	0.04	76	0.04	31	0.19	55	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		7	0.72	56	0.00	12	0.09	22	0.37	12	0.43	19	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		49	0.56	90	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	12	0.45	40	0.19
Poblocka 1999		50	0.55	16	0.01	61	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.05	67	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		57	0.53	22	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	41	0.13	57	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.57	18	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.04
Rangell 2001		53	0.54	26	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.19	5	0.50	30	0.31
Richter 1976		56	0.53	62	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	40	0.13	61	0.07
Rosen 1989		8	0.70	15	0.01	13	0.08	8	0.49	14	0.49	8	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.45	20	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	53	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.50	21	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	13	0.51	45	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.51	9	0.01	58	0.07	47	0.07	14	0.47	44	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.48	46	0.00	60	0.06	48	0.06	26	0.31	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		60	0.53	17	0.01	59	0.07	46	0.07	11	0.49	41	0.19
Rossi 2007		82	0.44	79	0.00	66	0.03	83	0.03	36	0.18	60	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		54	0.54	25	0.00	36	0.05	43	0.11	4	0.50	37	0.23
Rubinstein 1952		23	0.66	6	0.02	7	0.10	9	0.47	4	0.62	5	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.68	37	0.00	11	0.10	6	0.51	5	0.65	4	0.58
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.49	69	0.00	76	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	75	0.04
Shebanova 2002		16	0.68	50	0.00	21	0.07	15	0.41	15	0.47	14	0.44
Smith 1975		36	0.60	36	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.11	43	0.11	52	0.11
Sokolov 2002		52	0.54	60	0.00	73	0.04	61	0.04	56	0.04	68	0.04
Sztompka 1959		48	0.56	54	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.05	71	0.04
Tomsic 1995		20	0.67	53	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.30	9	0.60	17	0.42
Uninsky 1932		79	0.45	68	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	71	0.04	88	0.03
Uninsky 1971		83	0.43	19	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.05	73	0.04
Wasowski 1980		51	0.54	39	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.05
Zak 1937		12	0.70	48	0.00	16	0.10	12	0.42	18	0.42	16	0.42
Zak 1951		9	0.70	27	0.00	10	0.10	7	0.50	16	0.42	12	0.46
Average		2	0.78	3	0.15	4	0.37	1	0.66	29	0.31	13	0.45
Random 1		91	-0.12	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	28	0.29	66	0.05
Random 2		90	-0.12	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	64	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.03	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	40	0.11	90	0.03

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).