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		5	0.78	52	0.00	14	0.10	11	0.45	38	0.26	17	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		31	0.69	68	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	45	0.11	51	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		12	0.75	12	0.02	22	0.06	27	0.25	22	0.30	25	0.27
Bacha 2000		33	0.68	76	0.00	49	0.04	76	0.04	21	0.27	50	0.10
Badura 1965		26	0.70	10	0.02	41	0.06	32	0.19	30	0.37	24	0.27
Barbosa 1983		76	0.52	37	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	39	0.11	66	0.07
Biret 1990		3	0.79	16	0.01	7	0.08	5	0.50	4	0.58	3	0.54
Blet 2003		30	0.69	72	0.00	28	0.08	20	0.34	3	0.47	14	0.40
Block 1995		70	0.57	53	0.00	51	0.03	80	0.03	35	0.14	72	0.06
Blumental 1952		17	0.74	26	0.00	18	0.08	23	0.30	9	0.32	20	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.66	81	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.18	44	0.14	35	0.16
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.60	60	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.04
Bunin 1987		86	0.42	88	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	51	0.06	79	0.05
Bunin 1987b		87	0.41	83	0.00	87	0.04	69	0.04	50	0.07	75	0.05
Chiu 1999		35	0.67	70	0.00	62	0.04	52	0.04	42	0.14	65	0.07
Cohen 1997		57	0.61	47	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	5	0.48	39	0.14
Cortot 1951		59	0.60	57	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	50	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		77	0.50	51	0.00	70	0.05	48	0.05	27	0.28	45	0.12
Czerny 1949		66	0.58	82	0.00	46	0.04	75	0.04	51	0.06	78	0.05
Czerny 1990		32	0.69	38	0.00	38	0.04	35	0.15	59	0.04	61	0.08
Duchoud 2007		53	0.62	44	0.00	63	0.05	47	0.05	21	0.28	46	0.12
Ezaki 2006		18	0.73	32	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.12	47	0.05	57	0.08
Falvay 1989		48	0.64	18	0.01	50	0.03	79	0.03	20	0.46	42	0.12
Farrell 1958		23	0.71	55	0.00	20	0.06	22	0.33	9	0.51	12	0.41
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.61	56	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	44	0.08	70	0.06
Fliere 1977		25	0.70	19	0.01	10	0.09	12	0.45	41	0.15	26	0.26
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		36	0.67	69	0.00	30	0.07	33	0.18	12	0.48	21	0.29
Friedman 1923		67	0.58	63	0.00	80	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.05	85	0.04
Friedman 1923b		68	0.57	77	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.05	90	0.03
Friedman 1930		69	0.57	84	0.00	81	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.03	88	0.03
Garcia 2007		7	0.77	58	0.00	9	0.08	13	0.42	7	0.54	7	0.48
Garcia 2007b		16	0.74	27	0.00	15	0.08	15	0.37	18	0.42	15	0.39
Gierzod 1998		38	0.66	21	0.01	29	0.10	24	0.30	43	0.14	30	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		56	0.61	73	0.00	47	0.04	64	0.04	22	0.24	52	0.10
Groot 1988		45	0.64	54	0.00	32	0.06	40	0.11	25	0.34	32	0.19
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.74	11	0.02	19	0.12	25	0.30	59	0.05	48	0.12
Hatto 1993		42	0.65	59	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	58	0.06	73	0.06
Hatto 1997		40	0.66	65	0.00	53	0.05	49	0.05	45	0.10	67	0.07
Horowitz 1949		47	0.64	48	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.09	44	0.18	41	0.13
Indjic 1988		41	0.66	62	0.00	52	0.03	84	0.03	45	0.10	76	0.05
Kapell 1951		49	0.64	22	0.01	16	0.09	17	0.35	40	0.11	29	0.20
Kissin 1993		10	0.75	5	0.06	5	0.11	18	0.34	24	0.33	19	0.33
Kushner 1989		9	0.75	4	0.08	2	0.22	2	0.60	9	0.53	1	0.56
Luisada 1991		8	0.76	85	0.00	21	0.06	19	0.34	31	0.21	23	0.27
Lushtak 2004		21	0.72	61	0.00	27	0.06	21	0.34	12	0.34	18	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		80	0.49	87	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.03	87	0.03
Magaloff 1978		63	0.59	28	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	41	0.17	58	0.08
Magin 1975		43	0.65	6	0.03	23	0.06	26	0.27	26	0.30	22	0.28
Michalowski 1933		55	0.61	35	0.00	48	0.04	59	0.04	35	0.19	55	0.09
Milkina 1970		6	0.77	2	0.12	3	0.14	4	0.53	8	0.56	2	0.54
Mohovich 1999		19	0.73	8	0.02	12	0.09	7	0.48	11	0.52	4	0.50
Moravec 1969		75	0.52	34	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	41	0.14	69	0.06
Morozova 2008		11	0.75	50	0.00	13	0.07	14	0.41	11	0.46	11	0.43
Neighaus 1950		54	0.61	74	0.00	57	0.04	65	0.04	58	0.05	83	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.50	90	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		51	0.63	71	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	41	0.14	49	0.11
Osinska 1989		20	0.73	9	0.02	11	0.08	9	0.47	19	0.44	10	0.45
Pachmann 1927		64	0.59	78	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	15	0.37	44	0.12
Paderewski 1930		22	0.72	66	0.00	26	0.06	28	0.24	3	0.55	16	0.36
Perlemuter 1992		2	0.81	64	0.00	6	0.10	8	0.47	7	0.48	8	0.47
Pierdomenico 2008		74	0.54	24	0.01	64	0.04	53	0.04	26	0.35	43	0.12
Poblocka 1999		62	0.59	39	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.21	38	0.17	31	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		15	0.74	20	0.01	17	0.09	10	0.46	4	0.49	9	0.47
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.69	7	0.03	24	0.07	30	0.20	34	0.15	34	0.17
Rangell 2001		82	0.47	67	0.00	66	0.04	56	0.04	17	0.37	47	0.12
Richter 1976		79	0.49	86	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.05	81	0.04
Rosen 1989		13	0.75	41	0.00	8	0.08	6	0.50	10	0.48	5	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.48	33	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	37	0.11	71	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.43	15	0.01	85	0.03	77	0.03	33	0.20	60	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.44	13	0.02	84	0.04	58	0.04	28	0.21	56	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		88	0.41	36	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	38	0.17	68	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.44	31	0.00	86	0.04	55	0.04	33	0.18	62	0.08
Rossi 2007		50	0.63	42	0.00	72	0.03	85	0.03	26	0.29	53	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		46	0.64	40	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	11	0.41	40	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		65	0.59	25	0.01	55	0.05	51	0.05	9	0.52	36	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		44	0.65	17	0.01	33	0.07	41	0.11	18	0.40	28	0.21
Schilhawsky 1960		71	0.57	29	0.00	71	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.06	77	0.05
Shebanova 2002		34	0.68	49	0.00	25	0.06	16	0.36	43	0.15	27	0.23
Smith 1975		52	0.62	43	0.00	61	0.04	61	0.04	47	0.06	74	0.05
Sokolov 2002		60	0.60	45	0.00	56	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.14	64	0.07
Sztompka 1959		4	0.78	3	0.09	4	0.14	3	0.57	21	0.40	6	0.48
Tomsic 1995		72	0.55	46	0.00	65	0.04	54	0.04	10	0.54	37	0.15
Uninsky 1932		37	0.66	23	0.01	36	0.04	31	0.20	44	0.16	33	0.18
Uninsky 1971		73	0.55	14	0.01	40	0.04	38	0.13	43	0.18	38	0.15
Wasowski 1980		29	0.69	30	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.10	62	0.05	63	0.07
Zak 1937		24	0.71	80	0.00	34	0.04	36	0.15	62	0.04	59	0.08
Zak 1951		27	0.70	79	0.00	35	0.04	37	0.15	52	0.05	54	0.09
Average		1	0.84	1	0.28	1	0.28	1	0.66	32	0.26	13	0.41
Random 1		91	-0.25	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.08	89	0.03
Random 2		89	-0.04	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	61	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.11	75	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.14	82	0.04

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).