Random 3

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

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).