Random 1

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

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).