Brailowsky 1960

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		56	0.52	28	0.01	77	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		53	0.53	27	0.01	50	0.05	52	0.05	50	0.04	61	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.56	45	0.00	46	0.04	66	0.04	71	0.03	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		18	0.66	22	0.01	21	0.07	19	0.36	12	0.47	10	0.41
Badura 1965		81	0.33	37	0.00	80	0.04	80	0.04	84	0.02	77	0.03
Barbosa 1983		71	0.43	36	0.00	57	0.04	78	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.04
Biret 1990		24	0.64	70	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	53	0.04	49	0.06
Blet 2003		60	0.49	66	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Block 1995		15	0.67	26	0.01	18	0.07	17	0.39	7	0.38	14	0.38
Blumental 1952		82	0.33	12	0.02	56	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.03	79	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.71	8	0.03	19	0.09	22	0.34	20	0.30	21	0.32
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		46	0.56	71	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.04	65	0.04
Bunin 1987b		44	0.56	79	0.00	65	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.04	57	0.04
Chiu 1999		40	0.59	76	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.35	25	0.31	20	0.33
Cohen 1997		49	0.55	4	0.06	8	0.07	18	0.37	4	0.52	8	0.44
Cortot 1951		78	0.37	77	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Csalog 1996		64	0.48	52	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.12	29	0.28	28	0.18
Czerny 1949		74	0.40	64	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	79	0.03	74	0.03
Czerny 1990		50	0.55	56	0.00	73	0.05	54	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Duchoud 2007		69	0.46	88	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	88	0.02	76	0.03
Ezaki 2006		29	0.63	11	0.03	38	0.05	43	0.10	81	0.03	50	0.05
Falvay 1989		2	0.76	2	0.12	3	0.13	1	0.56	15	0.38	6	0.46
Farrell 1958		27	0.64	24	0.01	49	0.07	46	0.07	28	0.20	33	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		68	0.46	17	0.01	79	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.03	73	0.03
Fliere 1977		10	0.72	50	0.00	22	0.07	14	0.39	54	0.05	29	0.14
Fou 1978		7	0.72	23	0.01	7	0.07	6	0.47	16	0.44	7	0.45
Francois 1956		63	0.48	67	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		91	-0.18	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.17	89	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	84	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		86	0.05	57	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007		62	0.49	62	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	28	0.25	40	0.10
Garcia 2007b		76	0.38	55	0.00	54	0.05	49	0.05	7	0.40	30	0.14
Gierzod 1998		41	0.59	53	0.00	44	0.04	45	0.09	81	0.03	52	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.66	42	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.15	45	0.08	38	0.11
Groot 1988		9	0.72	6	0.04	6	0.08	5	0.49	25	0.25	18	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		48	0.55	51	0.00	24	0.07	26	0.28	52	0.05	35	0.12
Hatto 1993		79	0.36	21	0.01	40	0.05	35	0.16	50	0.04	43	0.08
Hatto 1997		73	0.41	74	0.00	43	0.07	38	0.13	54	0.04	45	0.07
Horowitz 1949		23	0.65	9	0.03	13	0.09	9	0.45	12	0.38	11	0.41
Indjic 1988		77	0.38	85	0.00	42	0.05	37	0.14	50	0.04	44	0.07
Kapell 1951		61	0.49	41	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.03	69	0.03
Kissin 1993		13	0.68	48	0.00	25	0.08	16	0.39	29	0.25	22	0.31
Kushner 1989		19	0.66	86	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.22	55	0.04	41	0.09
Luisada 1991		5	0.74	16	0.02	20	0.08	13	0.40	17	0.38	13	0.39
Lushtak 2004		51	0.54	68	0.00	55	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.03	78	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.67	69	0.00	33	0.07	34	0.20	72	0.03	42	0.08
Magaloff 1978		1	0.77	1	0.21	1	0.20	2	0.54	12	0.43	4	0.48
Magin 1975		34	0.61	58	0.00	29	0.10	29	0.28	20	0.26	23	0.27
Michalowski 1933		85	0.19	46	0.00	75	0.04	79	0.04	56	0.05	59	0.04
Milkina 1970		3	0.75	13	0.02	4	0.12	3	0.53	7	0.49	2	0.51
Mohovich 1999		11	0.71	10	0.03	27	0.09	25	0.30	54	0.04	37	0.11
Moravec 1969		54	0.53	60	0.00	51	0.04	69	0.04	57	0.04	53	0.04
Morozova 2008		33	0.61	20	0.01	34	0.06	32	0.23	60	0.04	39	0.10
Neighaus 1950		35	0.60	83	0.00	47	0.04	74	0.04	76	0.03	82	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.45	32	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	21	0.26	36	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.59	40	0.00	58	0.04	75	0.04	64	0.03	71	0.03
Osinska 1989		36	0.60	80	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	46	0.05	55	0.04
Pachmann 1927		42	0.59	39	0.00	23	0.07	31	0.25	18	0.45	19	0.34
Paderewski 1930		59	0.50	90	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.03	70	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.55	78	0.00	63	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.04	54	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		17	0.66	63	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.39	14	0.34	15	0.36
Poblocka 1999		39	0.59	65	0.00	64	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.04	51	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		75	0.38	54	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03	68	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.47	43	0.00	68	0.04	59	0.04	46	0.05	56	0.04
Rangell 2001		16	0.67	33	0.00	16	0.07	12	0.41	15	0.30	17	0.35
Richter 1976		26	0.64	81	0.00	28	0.09	24	0.33	11	0.39	16	0.36
Rosen 1989		22	0.65	30	0.01	31	0.08	27	0.28	31	0.27	24	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.48	59	0.00	70	0.05	51	0.05	68	0.03	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		31	0.62	47	0.00	15	0.08	11	0.41	10	0.46	9	0.43
Rosenthal 1931b		28	0.64	61	0.00	5	0.08	7	0.46	7	0.50	5	0.48
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.50	72	0.00	61	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		6	0.72	3	0.07	2	0.15	4	0.52	5	0.55	1	0.53
Rossi 2007		80	0.34	7	0.04	35	0.06	41	0.10	28	0.16	31	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		57	0.51	5	0.05	9	0.07	28	0.28	3	0.56	12	0.40
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.72	14	0.02	14	0.09	8	0.46	9	0.54	3	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.57	31	0.01	39	0.05	42	0.10	34	0.18	32	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		66	0.47	44	0.00	69	0.06	47	0.06	80	0.03	62	0.04
Shebanova 2002		21	0.66	34	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.26	31	0.25	26	0.25
Smith 1975		30	0.63	25	0.01	37	0.06	39	0.13	73	0.03	47	0.06
Sokolov 2002		55	0.52	49	0.00	71	0.04	58	0.04	80	0.03	67	0.03
Sztompka 1959		84	0.29	73	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Tomsic 1995		25	0.64	19	0.01	48	0.05	53	0.05	75	0.03	58	0.04
Uninsky 1932		83	0.30	75	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Uninsky 1971		72	0.42	29	0.01	81	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.02	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		52	0.53	38	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	42	0.10	46	0.06
Zak 1937		32	0.61	35	0.00	12	0.09	23	0.34	36	0.20	25	0.26
Zak 1951		37	0.60	18	0.01	11	0.06	21	0.35	44	0.14	27	0.22
Average		4	0.75	15	0.02	10	0.06	10	0.45	81	0.03	34	0.12
Random 1		88	-0.03	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	39	0.17	48	0.06
Random 2		89	-0.16	87	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.04	75	0.03
Random 3		87	0.04	84	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.04	80	0.03

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).