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		44	0.46	42	0.00	55	0.07	46	0.07	18	0.42	45	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.53	45	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.44	28	0.44	19	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.53	24	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.13	4	0.57	38	0.27
Bacha 2000		64	0.40	54	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	27	0.32	52	0.13
Badura 1965		57	0.42	67	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	28	0.28	62	0.11
Barbosa 1983		14	0.56	32	0.00	21	0.09	23	0.39	33	0.29	29	0.34
Biret 1990		21	0.53	10	0.01	17	0.07	20	0.41	29	0.36	26	0.38
Blet 2003		40	0.47	48	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	8	0.47	44	0.17
Block 1995		28	0.51	27	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.44	7	0.66	8	0.54
Blumental 1952		19	0.54	31	0.00	25	0.07	27	0.32	24	0.47	22	0.39
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.50	29	0.00	24	0.10	21	0.40	31	0.27	31	0.33
Brailowsky 1960		24	0.52	25	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.33	23	0.49	21	0.40
Bunin 1987		86	0.24	84	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.02
Bunin 1987b		85	0.25	87	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03
Chiu 1999		61	0.41	22	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	29	0.25	60	0.11
Cohen 1997		80	0.34	70	0.00	82	0.05	56	0.05	50	0.05	77	0.05
Cortot 1951		77	0.36	85	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	22	0.45	58	0.12
Csalog 1996		46	0.46	33	0.00	31	0.08	28	0.28	21	0.35	32	0.31
Czerny 1949		45	0.46	77	0.00	26	0.07	36	0.22	37	0.35	35	0.28
Czerny 1990		11	0.57	26	0.00	8	0.12	10	0.52	27	0.58	5	0.55
Duchoud 2007		82	0.29	81	0.00	85	0.04	75	0.04	47	0.07	76	0.05
Ezaki 2006		5	0.60	38	0.00	10	0.12	9	0.54	24	0.49	10	0.51
Falvay 1989		9	0.58	55	0.00	18	0.08	22	0.40	38	0.36	24	0.38
Farrell 1958		65	0.40	88	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	45	0.13	67	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.45	28	0.00	40	0.06	44	0.11	19	0.52	40	0.24
Fliere 1977		4	0.62	4	0.02	4	0.24	3	0.65	10	0.56	3	0.60
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		69	0.39	68	0.00	73	0.04	71	0.04	43	0.14	72	0.07
Friedman 1923		72	0.37	78	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	19	0.49	46	0.16
Friedman 1923b		67	0.39	60	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	14	0.53	47	0.15
Friedman 1930		84	0.28	86	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	87	0.03
Garcia 2007		79	0.34	51	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	60	0.05	83	0.04
Garcia 2007b		71	0.37	69	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	55	0.05	85	0.04
Gierzod 1998		3	0.62	18	0.01	3	0.18	6	0.57	19	0.51	7	0.54
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.51	37	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.24	30	0.36	34	0.29
Groot 1988		52	0.44	52	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.17	31	0.21	43	0.19
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.63	3	0.02	2	0.34	2	0.70	8	0.66	1	0.68
Hatto 1993		54	0.44	57	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.04	84	0.04
Hatto 1997		47	0.45	58	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.05	75	0.05
Horowitz 1949		81	0.30	56	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	30	0.27	64	0.10
Indjic 1988		51	0.44	82	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	55	0.05	74	0.05
Kapell 1951		16	0.55	5	0.02	11	0.14	11	0.50	23	0.51	13	0.50
Kissin 1993		13	0.57	30	0.00	14	0.06	14	0.48	14	0.58	9	0.53
Kushner 1989		15	0.55	46	0.00	15	0.08	15	0.46	37	0.32	25	0.38
Luisada 1991		36	0.48	75	0.00	56	0.05	59	0.05	32	0.26	59	0.11
Lushtak 2004		56	0.43	89	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.19	46	0.07	57	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		49	0.45	83	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	61	0.05	70	0.07
Magaloff 1978		35	0.48	20	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	44	0.15	66	0.09
Magin 1975		26	0.52	19	0.01	41	0.06	38	0.18	32	0.30	41	0.23
Michalowski 1933		88	0.21	72	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	63	0.03	89	0.02
Milkina 1970		6	0.60	2	0.04	5	0.15	8	0.55	26	0.42	15	0.48
Mohovich 1999		17	0.55	39	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.49	23	0.48	16	0.48
Moravec 1969		38	0.47	43	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	44	0.14	65	0.09
Morozova 2008		43	0.46	17	0.01	29	0.07	29	0.28	24	0.40	30	0.33
Neighaus 1950		73	0.37	79	0.00	68	0.04	63	0.04	15	0.45	54	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.28	61	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.05	80	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		66	0.40	64	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.04
Osinska 1989		7	0.59	23	0.00	12	0.18	7	0.56	31	0.45	12	0.50
Pachmann 1927		74	0.37	36	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	20	0.46	56	0.12
Paderewski 1930		87	0.22	49	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	25	0.33	61	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		76	0.36	47	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	41	0.14	73	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.35	59	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.05	79	0.04
Poblocka 1999		12	0.57	6	0.02	9	0.13	13	0.49	16	0.50	14	0.49
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.43	40	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.27	31	0.28	37	0.27
Rachmaninoff 1923		50	0.45	35	0.00	32	0.08	33	0.25	16	0.49	27	0.35
Rangell 2001		68	0.39	44	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	51	0.06	78	0.05
Richter 1976		25	0.52	13	0.01	33	0.05	35	0.24	21	0.51	28	0.35
Rosen 1989		23	0.52	15	0.01	43	0.06	43	0.12	32	0.31	42	0.19
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.42	21	0.00	65	0.05	57	0.05	27	0.39	50	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		53	0.44	34	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	15	0.47	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.37	62	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	39	0.20	69	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.42	53	0.00	66	0.06	47	0.06	34	0.21	63	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		60	0.41	63	0.00	60	0.04	70	0.04	15	0.50	51	0.14
Rossi 2007		63	0.41	11	0.01	53	0.05	58	0.05	24	0.35	53	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.49	9	0.01	16	0.07	19	0.42	16	0.49	18	0.45
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.58	12	0.01	6	0.12	4	0.62	20	0.53	4	0.57
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.57	7	0.01	7	0.12	5	0.60	26	0.48	6	0.54
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.41	66	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	49	0.05	82	0.04
Shebanova 2002		70	0.38	90	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.04	88	0.03
Smith 1975		30	0.50	8	0.01	39	0.06	41	0.16	22	0.45	36	0.27
Sokolov 2002		37	0.48	73	0.00	35	0.06	31	0.26	7	0.57	23	0.38
Sztompka 1959		32	0.49	41	0.00	23	0.10	16	0.45	17	0.57	11	0.51
Tomsic 1995		39	0.47	16	0.01	46	0.06	49	0.06	23	0.35	48	0.14
Uninsky 1932		42	0.46	50	0.00	22	0.08	25	0.34	10	0.65	17	0.47
Uninsky 1971		34	0.48	14	0.01	34	0.06	32	0.25	30	0.37	33	0.30
Wasowski 1980		41	0.47	80	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	35	0.29	55	0.12
Zak 1937		18	0.54	74	0.00	27	0.07	24	0.35	20	0.47	20	0.41
Zak 1951		27	0.52	65	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.17	28	0.34	39	0.24
Average		1	0.72	1	0.69	1	0.68	1	0.86	25	0.46	2	0.63
Random 1		89	-0.01	76	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	32	0.22	71	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.06	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.02	71	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	17	0.32	68	0.08

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).