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		12	0.67	20	0.00	15	0.11	17	0.47	30	0.38	22	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.64	54	0.00	26	0.06	22	0.41	16	0.49	18	0.45
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.66	12	0.01	21	0.09	24	0.37	10	0.50	21	0.43
Bacha 2000		47	0.57	79	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	12	0.42	49	0.14
Badura 1965		42	0.58	16	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	30	0.35	56	0.13
Barbosa 1983		57	0.55	28	0.00	41	0.06	43	0.14	30	0.40	39	0.24
Biret 1990		5	0.68	6	0.01	8	0.13	4	0.61	8	0.57	5	0.59
Blet 2003		38	0.58	44	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	4	0.56	36	0.25
Block 1995		49	0.56	37	0.00	35	0.08	29	0.27	6	0.60	24	0.40
Blumental 1952		14	0.66	17	0.00	11	0.12	16	0.48	10	0.46	16	0.47
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.61	49	0.00	27	0.06	30	0.27	35	0.28	34	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		55	0.55	41	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	24	0.41	52	0.13
Bunin 1987		87	0.34	80	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	63	0.04	90	0.03
Bunin 1987b		88	0.34	88	0.00	88	0.04	76	0.04	58	0.04	84	0.04
Chiu 1999		50	0.56	23	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	33	0.17	75	0.09
Cohen 1997		65	0.51	56	0.00	70	0.03	83	0.03	9	0.45	60	0.12
Cortot 1951		73	0.49	58	0.00	68	0.04	81	0.04	25	0.42	58	0.13
Csalog 1996		64	0.51	24	0.00	56	0.06	48	0.06	18	0.41	45	0.16
Czerny 1949		59	0.54	71	0.00	55	0.05	63	0.05	47	0.07	79	0.06
Czerny 1990		21	0.63	27	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.44	32	0.34	25	0.39
Duchoud 2007		72	0.49	72	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	22	0.31	69	0.11
Ezaki 2006		10	0.67	18	0.00	25	0.11	25	0.35	23	0.40	26	0.37
Falvay 1989		24	0.63	50	0.00	37	0.06	44	0.11	18	0.48	40	0.23
Farrell 1958		43	0.58	81	0.00	34	0.08	26	0.33	14	0.51	23	0.41
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.53	30	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	33	0.31	68	0.11
Fliere 1977		4	0.68	22	0.00	6	0.13	2	0.64	23	0.35	15	0.47
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		54	0.55	52	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	19	0.49	42	0.17
Friedman 1923		71	0.50	82	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	56	0.05	88	0.04
Friedman 1923b		70	0.50	59	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	61	0.05	83	0.05
Friedman 1930		81	0.45	85	0.00	82	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04	87	0.04
Garcia 2007		46	0.57	47	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	16	0.50	46	0.16
Garcia 2007b		36	0.58	76	0.00	29	0.06	31	0.25	20	0.48	29	0.35
Gierzod 1998		15	0.65	5	0.01	12	0.12	9	0.55	33	0.37	20	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.58	57	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	19	0.43	48	0.15
Groot 1988		51	0.56	48	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.19	19	0.35	35	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.70	4	0.02	3	0.22	8	0.57	23	0.52	8	0.54
Hatto 1993		45	0.57	89	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.16	45	0.10	57	0.13
Hatto 1997		37	0.58	64	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.17	42	0.13	47	0.15
Horowitz 1949		67	0.50	42	0.00	71	0.04	80	0.04	37	0.32	66	0.11
Indjic 1988		40	0.58	62	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.16	45	0.11	54	0.13
Kapell 1951		25	0.62	7	0.01	10	0.15	10	0.54	15	0.43	14	0.48
Kissin 1993		8	0.67	13	0.01	5	0.15	13	0.51	22	0.50	12	0.50
Kushner 1989		9	0.67	39	0.00	7	0.11	5	0.61	15	0.58	3	0.59
Luisada 1991		16	0.65	60	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.24	30	0.30	31	0.27
Lushtak 2004		39	0.58	90	0.00	40	0.05	37	0.19	27	0.34	37	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		74	0.49	73	0.00	69	0.04	77	0.04	62	0.04	85	0.04
Magaloff 1978		58	0.54	34	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	36	0.19	70	0.10
Magin 1975		27	0.61	38	0.00	23	0.10	23	0.38	27	0.35	27	0.36
Michalowski 1933		79	0.46	86	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	52	0.07	82	0.05
Milkina 1970		2	0.71	2	0.13	2	0.21	3	0.62	11	0.60	2	0.61
Mohovich 1999		18	0.64	40	0.00	13	0.13	11	0.53	14	0.62	6	0.57
Moravec 1969		69	0.50	35	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	39	0.19	74	0.09
Morozova 2008		22	0.63	9	0.01	19	0.10	21	0.42	12	0.48	19	0.45
Neighaus 1950		63	0.52	83	0.00	58	0.06	46	0.06	36	0.18	72	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		86	0.42	68	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.56	53	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	54	0.05	81	0.05
Osinska 1989		6	0.68	31	0.00	9	0.14	6	0.60	24	0.50	7	0.55
Pachmann 1927		77	0.47	46	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	18	0.42	67	0.11
Paderewski 1930		75	0.48	74	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	9	0.54	44	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.61	43	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	14	0.49	43	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.48	91	0.00	66	0.03	82	0.03	27	0.37	65	0.11
Poblocka 1999		30	0.61	11	0.01	20	0.10	18	0.45	20	0.47	17	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		28	0.61	21	0.00	16	0.11	12	0.52	7	0.53	10	0.52
Rachmaninoff 1923		32	0.60	26	0.00	24	0.10	28	0.28	26	0.30	30	0.29
Rangell 2001		78	0.46	55	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.38	61	0.12
Richter 1976		66	0.50	33	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	41	0.22	76	0.09
Rosen 1989		11	0.67	8	0.01	14	0.11	14	0.50	12	0.52	11	0.51
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.46	45	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	27	0.35	71	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.44	14	0.01	83	0.04	79	0.04	22	0.40	55	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.42	69	0.00	86	0.05	59	0.05	25	0.31	63	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.42	29	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	34	0.26	73	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.43	51	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	20	0.47	62	0.12
Rossi 2007		56	0.55	10	0.01	63	0.05	56	0.05	16	0.41	50	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		34	0.59	15	0.01	36	0.09	32	0.24	8	0.50	28	0.35
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.62	19	0.00	18	0.10	15	0.49	8	0.60	9	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.64	32	0.00	17	0.11	19	0.45	14	0.53	13	0.49
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.50	63	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	65	0.04	86	0.04
Shebanova 2002		48	0.57	84	0.00	39	0.06	40	0.17	56	0.05	77	0.09
Smith 1975		41	0.58	25	0.00	51	0.05	64	0.05	27	0.29	59	0.12
Sokolov 2002		52	0.56	61	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	22	0.33	53	0.13
Sztompka 1959		7	0.68	3	0.04	4	0.16	7	0.60	13	0.58	4	0.59
Tomsic 1995		62	0.52	77	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	15	0.52	51	0.14
Uninsky 1932		35	0.59	65	0.00	33	0.06	38	0.18	27	0.42	33	0.27
Uninsky 1971		60	0.54	66	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.22	34	0.26	38	0.24
Wasowski 1980		33	0.60	36	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	38	0.22	64	0.11
Zak 1937		17	0.64	78	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.32	35	0.23	32	0.27
Zak 1951		23	0.63	70	0.00	31	0.07	33	0.24	40	0.13	41	0.18
Average		1	0.79	1	0.62	1	0.61	1	0.85	21	0.48	1	0.64
Random 1		90	-0.07	75	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	30	0.18	80	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.07	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	72	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.03	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	10	0.36	78	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).