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		29	0.55	55	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.22	26	0.20	41	0.21
Anderszewski 2003		73	0.36	46	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.03	80	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.57	7	0.02	11	0.09	24	0.40	26	0.34	29	0.37
Bacha 2000		31	0.54	21	0.01	48	0.07	47	0.07	5	0.58	42	0.20
Badura 1965		53	0.43	33	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.26	7	0.52	27	0.37
Barbosa 1983		49	0.45	51	0.00	33	0.08	36	0.23	27	0.40	33	0.30
Biret 1990		57	0.42	76	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.04
Blet 2003		36	0.51	62	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.05	60	0.05
Block 1995		28	0.55	27	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.31	13	0.44	28	0.37
Blumental 1952		79	0.30	18	0.01	62	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.58	8	0.02	6	0.14	10	0.50	8	0.60	7	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		16	0.60	16	0.01	28	0.07	29	0.37	4	0.54	19	0.45
Bunin 1987		44	0.47	15	0.01	59	0.07	48	0.07	51	0.06	57	0.06
Bunin 1987b		45	0.47	20	0.01	58	0.04	71	0.04	52	0.06	59	0.05
Chiu 1999		26	0.57	38	0.00	24	0.09	16	0.45	11	0.58	10	0.51
Cohen 1997		61	0.41	67	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	23	0.35	51	0.12
Cortot 1951		80	0.27	70	0.00	86	0.04	74	0.04	85	0.02	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		56	0.43	74	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	23	0.41	50	0.14
Czerny 1949		72	0.36	35	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	44	0.13	55	0.07
Czerny 1990		39	0.50	36	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.17	38	0.16	47	0.16
Duchoud 2007		65	0.39	71	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	58	0.05	72	0.04
Ezaki 2006		21	0.58	72	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.38	21	0.34	30	0.36
Falvay 1989		2	0.71	4	0.03	3	0.20	5	0.58	3	0.70	2	0.64
Farrell 1958		43	0.47	45	0.00	53	0.05	56	0.05	14	0.40	49	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.35	11	0.01	81	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.03	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.65	14	0.01	4	0.19	4	0.59	5	0.64	4	0.61
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		41	0.48	39	0.00	27	0.08	32	0.28	26	0.31	35	0.29
Friedman 1923		88	0.07	86	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.08	82	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.04	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.17	44	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.05	71	0.04
Garcia 2007		82	0.24	79	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		83	0.21	87	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	65	0.03	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		46	0.47	47	0.00	35	0.06	45	0.14	26	0.22	44	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		30	0.55	75	0.00	20	0.06	25	0.38	15	0.42	26	0.40
Groot 1988		9	0.63	56	0.00	19	0.06	22	0.42	15	0.43	25	0.42
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.53	32	0.00	22	0.11	27	0.38	22	0.32	32	0.35
Hatto 1993		67	0.37	68	0.00	65	0.04	75	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04
Hatto 1997		64	0.39	48	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	64	0.04	61	0.05
Horowitz 1949		42	0.48	52	0.00	41	0.08	38	0.22	25	0.31	38	0.26
Indjic 1988		68	0.37	80	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.04	69	0.04
Kapell 1951		69	0.37	50	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	57	0.04	66	0.04
Kissin 1993		1	0.73	1	0.41	1	0.41	1	0.69	2	0.73	1	0.71
Kushner 1989		23	0.58	43	0.00	25	0.08	26	0.38	9	0.49	22	0.43
Luisada 1991		27	0.56	17	0.01	26	0.09	18	0.43	11	0.46	21	0.44
Lushtak 2004		14	0.61	6	0.03	14	0.07	14	0.47	18	0.46	18	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		11	0.62	23	0.00	21	0.08	13	0.48	26	0.36	23	0.42
Magaloff 1978		15	0.61	28	0.00	9	0.12	11	0.49	9	0.45	15	0.47
Magin 1975		47	0.47	29	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	19	0.28	43	0.20
Michalowski 1933		86	0.13	63	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		7	0.63	31	0.00	8	0.14	9	0.50	5	0.59	8	0.54
Mohovich 1999		18	0.59	66	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.35	21	0.37	31	0.36
Moravec 1969		58	0.42	34	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04	62	0.04
Morozova 2008		20	0.58	9	0.02	12	0.09	23	0.41	9	0.43	24	0.42
Neighaus 1950		12	0.62	19	0.01	15	0.07	7	0.52	21	0.42	16	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		81	0.24	25	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.03	88	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.50	22	0.01	34	0.09	35	0.24	28	0.24	39	0.24
Osinska 1989		48	0.46	88	0.00	46	0.06	53	0.06	39	0.12	54	0.08
Pachmann 1927		13	0.61	26	0.00	18	0.09	12	0.49	1	0.72	5	0.59
Paderewski 1930		62	0.40	60	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	55	0.04	67	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.54	41	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.28	28	0.31	34	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.45	69	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.18	17	0.37	37	0.26
Poblocka 1999		40	0.49	12	0.01	55	0.07	46	0.07	68	0.04	58	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		77	0.31	89	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.39	40	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.04	64	0.04
Rangell 2001		33	0.53	30	0.00	13	0.07	21	0.43	6	0.53	14	0.48
Richter 1976		35	0.53	24	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.18	29	0.26	40	0.22
Rosen 1989		19	0.58	57	0.00	31	0.12	20	0.43	12	0.48	20	0.45
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.36	53	0.00	70	0.04	61	0.04	42	0.12	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		51	0.44	54	0.00	45	0.08	43	0.15	10	0.53	36	0.28
Rosenthal 1931b		54	0.43	78	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	13	0.47	45	0.17
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.43	90	0.00	56	0.07	50	0.07	41	0.14	53	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.44	77	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	10	0.43	48	0.16
Rossi 2007		84	0.18	83	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	69	0.03	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.42	49	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	4	0.54	46	0.16
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.63	5	0.03	7	0.10	6	0.54	5	0.59	6	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.65	3	0.06	5	0.17	3	0.61	2	0.68	3	0.64
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.35	84	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04
Shebanova 2002		10	0.63	13	0.01	23	0.08	8	0.51	9	0.53	9	0.52
Smith 1975		37	0.50	73	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.19	50	0.05	52	0.10
Sokolov 2002		59	0.42	64	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03
Sztompka 1959		66	0.38	37	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	64	0.04	68	0.04
Tomsic 1995		4	0.67	59	0.00	10	0.13	15	0.46	9	0.50	13	0.48
Uninsky 1932		78	0.30	65	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		76	0.33	61	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.03	79	0.03
Wasowski 1980		71	0.36	58	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.04	63	0.04
Zak 1937		24	0.57	42	0.00	17	0.07	19	0.43	9	0.53	12	0.48
Zak 1951		17	0.59	10	0.02	16	0.06	17	0.44	8	0.56	11	0.50
Average		3	0.71	2	0.17	2	0.24	2	0.63	20	0.33	17	0.46
Random 1		90	0.00	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	56	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.07	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	75	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	0.02	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	54	0.03	91	0.02

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).