Friedman 1923

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		43	0.20	14	0.00	26	0.06	31	0.21	83	0.02	42	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		49	0.18	30	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	89	0.02	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.33	10	0.00	20	0.09	21	0.33	84	0.03	30	0.10
Bacha 2000		76	0.04	31	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	80	0.02
Badura 1965		29	0.24	32	0.00	21	0.07	23	0.30	60	0.04	27	0.11
Barbosa 1983		55	0.16	33	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	82	0.03	75	0.03
Biret 1990		58	0.16	34	0.00	59	0.06	58	0.06	80	0.03	62	0.04
Blet 2003		11	0.33	3	0.00	11	0.10	11	0.44	56	0.05	19	0.15
Block 1995		52	0.17	35	0.00	27	0.07	32	0.17	75	0.03	39	0.07
Blumental 1952		25	0.26	36	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.36	28	0.24	7	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.20	37	0.00	35	0.05	33	0.17	58	0.04	36	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		83	-0.02	38	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.02
Bunin 1987		16	0.29	39	0.00	14	0.12	13	0.43	44	0.11	10	0.22
Bunin 1987b		15	0.29	40	0.00	13	0.09	12	0.43	44	0.11	9	0.22
Chiu 1999		17	0.29	41	0.00	24	0.06	26	0.28	79	0.03	31	0.09
Cohen 1997		87	-0.07	42	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Cortot 1951		24	0.27	43	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.34	44	0.09	14	0.17
Csalog 1996		84	-0.03	15	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	90	0.01	84	0.02
Czerny 1949		65	0.13	44	0.00	39	0.05	44	0.11	56	0.05	38	0.07
Czerny 1990		33	0.23	16	0.00	9	0.08	10	0.45	54	0.05	20	0.15
Duchoud 2007		9	0.34	45	0.00	12	0.12	14	0.42	48	0.06	18	0.16
Ezaki 2006		45	0.20	46	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	83	0.02	66	0.03
Falvay 1989		85	-0.04	47	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	90	0.01	82	0.02
Farrell 1958		23	0.27	48	0.00	34	0.05	27	0.26	71	0.03	32	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		82	0.00	49	0.00	75	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.01	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		8	0.34	11	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.42	58	0.05	21	0.14
Fou 1978		75	0.07	50	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.02	69	0.03
Francois 1956		73	0.09	51	0.00	49	0.06	56	0.06	73	0.03	65	0.04
Friedman 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923b		1	0.99	1	1.00	1	0.99	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Friedman 1930		2	0.68	12	0.00	2	0.74	2	0.83	1	0.78	2	0.80
Garcia 2007		18	0.28	52	0.00	30	0.06	29	0.24	25	0.31	8	0.27
Garcia 2007b		30	0.24	53	0.00	36	0.05	43	0.12	25	0.28	12	0.18
Gierzod 1998		42	0.20	54	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	75	0.03	60	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.16	55	0.00	28	0.07	36	0.14	78	0.03	45	0.06
Groot 1988		62	0.15	56	0.00	50	0.08	45	0.08	87	0.02	63	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.21	57	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	58	0.04	51	0.05
Hatto 1993		22	0.27	58	0.00	54	0.07	47	0.07	78	0.03	50	0.05
Hatto 1997		35	0.23	59	0.00	58	0.04	75	0.04	80	0.03	77	0.03
Horowitz 1949		54	0.16	13	0.00	65	0.06	60	0.06	82	0.03	56	0.04
Indjic 1988		28	0.25	60	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	82	0.03	57	0.04
Kapell 1951		39	0.21	61	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.22	43	0.12	15	0.16
Kissin 1993		79	0.03	6	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.02	83	0.02
Kushner 1989		32	0.24	62	0.00	45	0.06	54	0.06	86	0.02	70	0.03
Luisada 1991		51	0.17	63	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	78	0.03	52	0.04
Lushtak 2004		31	0.24	64	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.12	79	0.03	43	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.27	65	0.00	25	0.06	19	0.35	75	0.03	29	0.10
Magaloff 1978		41	0.21	7	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.13	74	0.03	41	0.06
Magin 1975		36	0.22	66	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.15	78	0.03	37	0.07
Michalowski 1933		7	0.36	17	0.00	6	0.18	6	0.51	29	0.33	6	0.41
Milkina 1970		88	-0.08	67	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Mohovich 1999		68	0.12	18	0.00	63	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03
Moravec 1969		72	0.09	68	0.00	62	0.04	74	0.04	83	0.02	67	0.03
Morozova 2008		14	0.29	69	0.00	19	0.06	17	0.37	73	0.03	25	0.11
Neighaus 1950		10	0.33	70	0.00	10	0.08	8	0.46	80	0.03	24	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		50	0.18	8	0.00	33	0.07	37	0.13	37	0.12	22	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.28	71	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.29	80	0.03	33	0.09
Osinska 1989		60	0.15	19	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	85	0.03	68	0.03
Pachmann 1927		69	0.11	5	0.00	73	0.05	62	0.05	80	0.02	74	0.03
Paderewski 1930		40	0.21	2	0.00	23	0.08	24	0.30	40	0.12	11	0.19
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.26	9	0.00	16	0.08	22	0.33	81	0.03	28	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.16	20	0.00	70	0.05	63	0.05	71	0.03	53	0.04
Poblocka 1999		46	0.19	72	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	74	0.04	47	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.13	21	0.00	51	0.06	59	0.06	78	0.03	54	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		5	0.40	22	0.00	4	0.27	4	0.63	16	0.39	4	0.50
Rangell 2001		63	0.14	73	0.00	66	0.06	57	0.06	78	0.03	61	0.04
Richter 1976		70	0.11	23	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.03	73	0.03
Rosen 1989		6	0.36	24	0.00	7	0.12	9	0.46	79	0.03	23	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.26	74	0.00	32	0.07	28	0.25	50	0.05	26	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.13	75	0.00	71	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.03	58	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		53	0.16	76	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	75	0.03	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		34	0.23	77	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.16	54	0.05	35	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.09	78	0.00	72	0.07	46	0.07	70	0.03	49	0.05
Rossi 2007		71	0.10	79	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.13	28	0.21	13	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		89	-0.11	25	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		90	-0.20	80	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		78	0.03	26	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		12	0.33	27	0.00	18	0.07	16	0.38	46	0.07	17	0.16
Shebanova 2002		61	0.15	4	0.00	61	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03
Smith 1975		48	0.19	81	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.12	86	0.02	48	0.05
Sokolov 2002		37	0.22	82	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.12	70	0.03	40	0.06
Sztompka 1959		4	0.41	83	0.00	5	0.38	5	0.56	26	0.35	5	0.44
Tomsic 1995		80	0.01	84	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	86	0.02	72	0.03
Uninsky 1932		3	0.42	85	0.00	3	0.36	3	0.64	12	0.47	3	0.55
Uninsky 1971		19	0.28	28	0.00	8	0.14	7	0.49	53	0.05	16	0.16
Wasowski 1980		47	0.19	86	0.00	56	0.06	48	0.06	68	0.04	46	0.05
Zak 1937		56	0.16	87	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04	55	0.04
Zak 1951		64	0.14	88	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	71	0.03
Random 1		81	0.01	29	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	19	0.28	34	0.09
Random 2		86	-0.04	89	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.05	59	0.04
Random 3		77	0.03	90	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	41	0.11	44	0.06

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).