Barbosa 1983

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		2	0.71	24	0.01	2	0.12	8	0.49	11	0.39	6	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.28	80	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.02	85	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		62	0.40	75	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	77	0.03	68	0.04
Bacha 2000		64	0.40	51	0.00	58	0.03	68	0.03	35	0.18	52	0.07
Badura 1965		33	0.55	69	0.00	38	0.09	31	0.29	25	0.31	24	0.30
Barbosa 1983		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Biret 1990		27	0.57	15	0.01	13	0.07	9	0.44	16	0.31	12	0.37
Blet 2003		1	0.75	1	0.28	1	0.27	2	0.58	2	0.63	1	0.60
Block 1995		79	0.25	14	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.02	80	0.03	86	0.02
Blumental 1952		77	0.28	58	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.04	80	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.41	22	0.01	66	0.04	63	0.04	42	0.13	53	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		58	0.43	59	0.00	69	0.04	61	0.04	78	0.04	62	0.04
Bunin 1987		15	0.63	57	0.00	28	0.09	20	0.39	33	0.26	20	0.32
Bunin 1987b		14	0.63	47	0.00	27	0.06	19	0.39	33	0.26	19	0.32
Chiu 1999		5	0.67	6	0.05	3	0.13	7	0.51	2	0.60	2	0.55
Cohen 1997		81	0.24	41	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.12	54	0.07
Cortot 1951		57	0.44	87	0.00	50	0.04	57	0.04	50	0.06	60	0.05
Csalog 1996		38	0.53	3	0.06	12	0.07	23	0.37	11	0.47	8	0.42
Czerny 1949		28	0.57	88	0.00	42	0.07	44	0.18	47	0.07	42	0.11
Czerny 1990		24	0.59	31	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.24	68	0.04	43	0.10
Duchoud 2007		10	0.64	4	0.06	7	0.12	4	0.52	8	0.48	4	0.50
Ezaki 2006		13	0.63	66	0.00	22	0.07	11	0.43	34	0.18	27	0.28
Falvay 1989		23	0.59	76	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.19	62	0.04	46	0.09
Farrell 1958		56	0.45	60	0.00	61	0.03	72	0.03	65	0.04	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		37	0.54	89	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.25	34	0.26	29	0.25
Fliere 1977		12	0.63	2	0.09	6	0.12	5	0.52	23	0.27	11	0.37
Fou 1978		45	0.49	5	0.05	8	0.11	33	0.28	39	0.19	33	0.23
Francois 1956		4	0.67	16	0.01	16	0.08	16	0.40	25	0.26	21	0.32
Friedman 1923		87	0.09	32	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	57	0.06	81	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.11	40	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	63	0.05	69	0.04
Friedman 1930		82	0.24	70	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04	66	0.04
Garcia 2007		83	0.24	46	0.00	78	0.02	81	0.02	50	0.05	78	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.07	50	0.00	90	0.01	88	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		51	0.47	74	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		42	0.52	71	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	47	0.05	59	0.05
Groot 1988		7	0.65	23	0.01	10	0.08	3	0.52	22	0.32	10	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		50	0.47	44	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	47	0.05	70	0.04
Hatto 1993		73	0.29	10	0.02	33	0.11	41	0.22	27	0.22	34	0.22
Hatto 1997		67	0.37	26	0.01	31	0.06	36	0.25	25	0.29	28	0.27
Horowitz 1949		65	0.39	61	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	78	0.03	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		70	0.33	13	0.02	32	0.09	39	0.23	25	0.26	32	0.24
Kapell 1951		25	0.58	77	0.00	37	0.08	30	0.31	40	0.18	31	0.24
Kissin 1993		48	0.47	64	0.00	63	0.04	51	0.04	55	0.05	65	0.04
Kushner 1989		43	0.49	90	0.00	65	0.06	47	0.06	60	0.04	57	0.05
Luisada 1991		59	0.42	29	0.01	55	0.04	53	0.04	46	0.06	56	0.05
Lushtak 2004		8	0.65	17	0.01	4	0.11	6	0.51	21	0.35	9	0.42
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.48	72	0.00	56	0.04	55	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		66	0.38	35	0.00	59	0.03	71	0.03	51	0.04	71	0.03
Magin 1975		85	0.20	62	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	79	0.02	83	0.02
Michalowski 1933		72	0.30	56	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	40	0.16	47	0.09
Milkina 1970		52	0.46	78	0.00	57	0.03	70	0.03	51	0.05	63	0.04
Mohovich 1999		16	0.62	9	0.03	11	0.10	13	0.43	26	0.26	16	0.33
Moravec 1969		46	0.49	91	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.04
Morozova 2008		36	0.54	37	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.28	41	0.11	37	0.18
Neighaus 1950		34	0.55	19	0.01	20	0.08	21	0.38	42	0.16	30	0.25
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.34	53	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.02	74	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.57	34	0.00	25	0.06	12	0.43	28	0.22	22	0.31
Osinska 1989		32	0.55	63	0.00	44	0.06	45	0.17	51	0.05	45	0.09
Pachmann 1927		18	0.62	12	0.02	9	0.09	10	0.44	2	0.61	3	0.52
Paderewski 1930		55	0.45	82	0.00	60	0.03	74	0.03	40	0.10	58	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.62	25	0.01	40	0.09	32	0.29	37	0.12	36	0.19
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.41	85	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	66	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		29	0.57	45	0.00	18	0.10	15	0.41	25	0.30	14	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		31	0.55	30	0.01	29	0.07	27	0.33	25	0.32	17	0.32
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.49	39	0.00	52	0.04	58	0.04	68	0.03	72	0.03
Rangell 2001		63	0.40	49	0.00	67	0.04	54	0.04	22	0.23	44	0.10
Richter 1976		53	0.46	43	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	47	0.05	64	0.04
Rosen 1989		54	0.45	20	0.01	47	0.05	48	0.05	43	0.15	48	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.37	83	0.00	76	0.03	69	0.03	72	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.29	73	0.00	82	0.02	80	0.02	77	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.21	67	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	75	0.03	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.30	86	0.00	79	0.02	78	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.25	38	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.02	90	0.01
Rossi 2007		78	0.27	68	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.02	82	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.29	27	0.01	77	0.02	79	0.02	31	0.29	50	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		41	0.52	28	0.01	54	0.04	52	0.04	32	0.21	49	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.57	7	0.04	21	0.08	17	0.39	8	0.53	5	0.45
Schilhawsky 1960		19	0.62	33	0.00	15	0.07	25	0.37	42	0.11	35	0.20
Shebanova 2002		35	0.55	55	0.00	35	0.06	29	0.32	30	0.26	26	0.29
Smith 1975		20	0.61	81	0.00	34	0.09	28	0.32	50	0.05	40	0.13
Sokolov 2002		39	0.52	54	0.00	43	0.06	38	0.23	49	0.06	41	0.12
Sztompka 1959		40	0.52	65	0.00	45	0.09	43	0.18	39	0.16	39	0.17
Tomsic 1995		22	0.60	36	0.00	26	0.05	24	0.37	30	0.22	25	0.29
Uninsky 1932		21	0.61	18	0.01	23	0.07	26	0.35	29	0.32	15	0.33
Uninsky 1971		6	0.65	48	0.00	14	0.07	14	0.43	20	0.42	7	0.42
Wasowski 1980		49	0.47	42	0.00	24	0.07	40	0.23	36	0.12	38	0.17
Zak 1937		11	0.63	11	0.02	19	0.12	22	0.37	26	0.27	18	0.32
Zak 1951		9	0.65	21	0.01	17	0.10	18	0.39	24	0.33	13	0.36
Average		3	0.67	8	0.04	5	0.12	1	0.61	39	0.15	23	0.30
Random 1		89	-0.01	52	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	22	0.30	51	0.08
Random 2		90	-0.06	84	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	29	0.19	55	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.10	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	59	0.04	87	0.02

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).