Pierdomenico 2008

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	0.55	70	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04	64	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		58	0.47	34	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.03	71	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.56	26	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.29	58	0.04	36	0.11
Bacha 2000		67	0.44	46	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	30	0.22	41	0.09
Badura 1965		72	0.41	50	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	75	0.03	88	0.02
Barbosa 1983		71	0.41	73	0.00	68	0.03	65	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03
Biret 1990		18	0.63	20	0.01	19	0.08	16	0.32	41	0.13	28	0.20
Blet 2003		59	0.47	90	0.00	77	0.03	66	0.03	69	0.04	72	0.03
Block 1995		37	0.57	19	0.01	46	0.04	51	0.04	20	0.29	35	0.11
Blumental 1952		81	0.28	77	0.00	85	0.04	59	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		28	0.59	47	0.00	20	0.06	33	0.18	34	0.18	29	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		12	0.66	88	0.00	14	0.10	13	0.34	14	0.39	6	0.36
Bunin 1987		61	0.47	48	0.00	75	0.03	67	0.03	67	0.04	79	0.03
Bunin 1987b		60	0.47	63	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	65	0.04	68	0.03
Chiu 1999		32	0.59	17	0.01	28	0.06	23	0.28	23	0.34	10	0.31
Cohen 1997		77	0.34	85	0.00	64	0.03	64	0.03	20	0.32	39	0.10
Cortot 1951		65	0.45	31	0.00	79	0.02	86	0.02	67	0.04	82	0.03
Csalog 1996		76	0.35	86	0.00	63	0.03	71	0.03	42	0.18	47	0.07
Czerny 1949		34	0.58	51	0.00	57	0.04	53	0.04	71	0.03	76	0.03
Czerny 1990		10	0.68	52	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.10	76	0.03	56	0.05
Duchoud 2007		48	0.53	29	0.00	49	0.04	52	0.04	75	0.03	77	0.03
Ezaki 2006		8	0.69	57	0.00	24	0.11	25	0.28	54	0.04	32	0.11
Falvay 1989		6	0.70	1	0.24	1	0.23	1	0.55	12	0.39	3	0.46
Farrell 1958		45	0.54	24	0.00	52	0.05	45	0.05	48	0.05	55	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.40	87	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	67	0.03	75	0.03
Fliere 1977		1	0.74	7	0.04	4	0.13	4	0.48	32	0.18	15	0.29
Fou 1978		36	0.57	15	0.02	9	0.08	10	0.39	27	0.33	7	0.36
Francois 1956		33	0.59	40	0.00	17	0.08	28	0.22	46	0.06	38	0.11
Friedman 1923		89	-0.04	56	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	73	0.05	83	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	-0.03	25	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.04	80	0.03
Friedman 1930		80	0.32	30	0.00	72	0.02	84	0.02	63	0.05	73	0.03
Garcia 2007		75	0.36	58	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	50	0.05	65	0.04
Garcia 2007b		79	0.33	35	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	15	0.25	40	0.10
Gierzod 1998		26	0.60	49	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.13	61	0.04	49	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.71	21	0.01	21	0.07	18	0.31	19	0.31	11	0.31
Groot 1988		23	0.62	71	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.23	47	0.05	37	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.63	14	0.02	12	0.09	12	0.36	27	0.27	12	0.31
Hatto 1993		84	0.25	66	0.00	67	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.03	81	0.03
Hatto 1997		82	0.28	28	0.00	62	0.03	69	0.03	59	0.03	74	0.03
Horowitz 1949		41	0.56	3	0.07	5	0.13	17	0.31	16	0.34	9	0.32
Indjic 1988		85	0.24	82	0.00	66	0.02	83	0.02	66	0.03	86	0.02
Kapell 1951		51	0.52	78	0.00	61	0.03	68	0.03	69	0.03	67	0.03
Kissin 1993		4	0.71	5	0.07	2	0.16	2	0.51	12	0.46	1	0.48
Kushner 1989		3	0.72	4	0.07	6	0.11	7	0.42	26	0.29	8	0.35
Luisada 1991		16	0.64	54	0.00	27	0.06	20	0.29	29	0.24	20	0.26
Lushtak 2004		54	0.51	74	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.10	58	0.04	52	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.68	22	0.01	10	0.08	8	0.40	29	0.21	16	0.29
Magaloff 1978		2	0.72	2	0.09	3	0.21	3	0.51	15	0.41	2	0.46
Magin 1975		30	0.59	39	0.00	13	0.07	22	0.29	14	0.28	17	0.28
Michalowski 1933		78	0.34	42	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	76	0.03	69	0.03
Milkina 1970		21	0.63	10	0.03	7	0.10	5	0.48	15	0.40	4	0.44
Mohovich 1999		13	0.66	68	0.00	25	0.07	19	0.30	34	0.13	27	0.20
Moravec 1969		50	0.52	9	0.03	32	0.05	30	0.20	29	0.21	26	0.20
Morozova 2008		35	0.58	75	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	62	0.04	51	0.06
Neighaus 1950		19	0.63	12	0.02	16	0.08	15	0.33	36	0.18	24	0.24
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.42	72	0.00	35	0.05	43	0.10	36	0.16	31	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		31	0.59	36	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.20	44	0.11	30	0.15
Osinska 1989		11	0.67	67	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.10	47	0.05	45	0.07
Pachmann 1927		74	0.37	16	0.02	59	0.04	58	0.04	67	0.04	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		52	0.52	60	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.02	84	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.56	64	0.00	54	0.04	48	0.04	56	0.04	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Poblocka 1999		53	0.52	83	0.00	65	0.03	72	0.03	58	0.04	66	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		25	0.60	11	0.02	47	0.04	47	0.04	57	0.04	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.46	44	0.00	34	0.04	37	0.14	48	0.04	46	0.07
Rangell 2001		14	0.66	6	0.05	11	0.11	11	0.38	22	0.23	14	0.30
Richter 1976		42	0.55	79	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.10	41	0.08	43	0.09
Rosen 1989		15	0.64	23	0.01	23	0.08	24	0.28	26	0.33	13	0.30
Rosenthal 1930		46	0.54	80	0.00	50	0.04	54	0.04	41	0.14	50	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		49	0.52	37	0.00	36	0.04	34	0.17	17	0.38	22	0.25
Rosenthal 1931b		56	0.49	84	0.00	37	0.04	36	0.15	18	0.37	25	0.24
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.51	41	0.00	53	0.04	56	0.04	46	0.06	57	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		44	0.55	59	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.21	20	0.33	21	0.26
Rossi 2007		47	0.53	55	0.00	48	0.04	49	0.04	22	0.21	42	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.26	43	0.00	71	0.02	82	0.02	29	0.30	44	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.56	65	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.15	23	0.42	23	0.25
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.48	61	0.00	60	0.05	46	0.05	44	0.11	48	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.46	76	0.00	76	0.03	70	0.03	84	0.02	87	0.02
Shebanova 2002		17	0.64	8	0.03	18	0.07	6	0.43	17	0.44	5	0.43
Smith 1975		7	0.70	18	0.01	22	0.08	26	0.26	50	0.05	33	0.11
Sokolov 2002		24	0.60	38	0.00	45	0.04	50	0.04	46	0.07	54	0.05
Sztompka 1959		64	0.46	27	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.05	62	0.04
Tomsic 1995		22	0.62	62	0.00	29	0.05	32	0.18	44	0.07	34	0.11
Uninsky 1932		68	0.43	13	0.02	84	0.04	63	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.04
Uninsky 1971		70	0.42	81	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.02	85	0.02
Wasowski 1980		66	0.44	45	0.00	55	0.04	55	0.04	67	0.04	58	0.04
Zak 1937		29	0.59	33	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.34	33	0.21	19	0.27
Zak 1951		27	0.60	69	0.00	8	0.08	9	0.39	35	0.20	18	0.28
Random 1		88	-0.03	32	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	55	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.13	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		86	0.00	53	0.00	86	0.03	75	0.03	41	0.11	53	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).