Chiu 1999

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		28	0.52	24	0.01	41	0.04	42	0.12	71	0.03	51	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		78	0.29	83	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.53	13	0.02	17	0.08	19	0.36	46	0.05	36	0.13
Bacha 2000		37	0.50	17	0.01	19	0.07	17	0.39	6	0.52	9	0.45
Badura 1965		58	0.40	43	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	51	0.04	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		3	0.67	3	0.08	3	0.10	2	0.60	7	0.51	2	0.55
Biret 1990		16	0.58	8	0.03	7	0.14	8	0.53	6	0.47	6	0.50
Blet 2003		20	0.56	58	0.00	38	0.04	40	0.13	46	0.06	41	0.09
Block 1995		67	0.35	39	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	64	0.04	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		60	0.39	49	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	40	0.11	46	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.51	79	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	43	0.12	47	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		14	0.59	84	0.00	29	0.10	25	0.31	20	0.35	18	0.33
Bunin 1987		45	0.46	59	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	63	0.04	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		43	0.47	51	0.00	56	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.04	61	0.04
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		70	0.34	11	0.02	62	0.04	67	0.04	18	0.35	37	0.12
Cortot 1951		81	0.27	82	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	76	0.03	91	0.02
Csalog 1996		61	0.39	50	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	20	0.39	34	0.14
Czerny 1949		57	0.40	60	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Czerny 1990		32	0.51	28	0.00	42	0.05	35	0.16	52	0.05	42	0.09
Duchoud 2007		39	0.49	21	0.01	21	0.10	18	0.37	35	0.24	22	0.30
Ezaki 2006		23	0.55	77	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.14	62	0.04	44	0.07
Falvay 1989		7	0.64	10	0.02	12	0.11	10	0.49	28	0.23	17	0.34
Farrell 1958		42	0.47	61	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	26	0.21	38	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		86	0.20	85	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		6	0.64	2	0.18	2	0.21	1	0.61	10	0.41	5	0.50
Fou 1978		8	0.64	15	0.02	11	0.10	7	0.53	15	0.44	7	0.48
Francois 1956		56	0.41	45	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	67	0.04	72	0.04
Friedman 1923		88	0.08	44	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.05	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.10	38	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	56	0.05	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.22	32	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		72	0.32	64	0.00	82	0.05	54	0.05	43	0.12	43	0.08
Garcia 2007b		76	0.31	69	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	49	0.05	73	0.04
Gierzod 1998		48	0.44	72	0.00	45	0.06	41	0.12	73	0.03	52	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.47	75	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	62	0.04	56	0.05
Groot 1988		34	0.51	62	0.00	31	0.07	28	0.25	39	0.13	31	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.50	66	0.00	53	0.06	46	0.06	83	0.03	70	0.04
Hatto 1993		66	0.36	53	0.00	24	0.06	33	0.21	25	0.23	28	0.22
Hatto 1997		63	0.38	40	0.00	25	0.08	34	0.20	29	0.19	29	0.19
Horowitz 1949		25	0.54	18	0.01	26	0.08	22	0.35	19	0.32	19	0.33
Indjic 1988		65	0.36	74	0.00	22	0.06	30	0.22	29	0.23	27	0.22
Kapell 1951		69	0.34	52	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	65	0.04	75	0.03
Kissin 1993		18	0.57	70	0.00	27	0.06	20	0.36	32	0.24	23	0.29
Kushner 1989		30	0.51	46	0.00	36	0.05	39	0.13	59	0.04	45	0.07
Luisada 1991		10	0.62	67	0.00	15	0.18	14	0.46	8	0.43	10	0.44
Lushtak 2004		13	0.59	19	0.01	28	0.07	26	0.31	66	0.04	39	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.46	63	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.04	62	0.04
Magaloff 1978		38	0.49	25	0.01	23	0.06	23	0.35	41	0.15	26	0.23
Magin 1975		54	0.42	47	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	55	0.04	59	0.04
Michalowski 1933		80	0.27	42	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	60	0.05	63	0.04
Milkina 1970		33	0.51	73	0.00	14	0.15	16	0.42	14	0.42	12	0.42
Mohovich 1999		19	0.57	41	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.24	46	0.05	40	0.11
Moravec 1969		50	0.43	71	0.00	44	0.05	37	0.14	33	0.18	32	0.16
Morozova 2008		11	0.61	9	0.02	16	0.14	13	0.47	14	0.26	16	0.35
Neighaus 1950		12	0.60	7	0.04	10	0.09	12	0.47	31	0.27	15	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.27	36	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	55	0.04	58	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.56	12	0.02	13	0.13	11	0.47	15	0.39	11	0.43
Osinska 1989		35	0.50	78	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	65	0.04	48	0.06
Pachmann 1927		5	0.65	4	0.08	4	0.12	4	0.57	4	0.59	1	0.58
Paderewski 1930		73	0.32	54	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	76	0.02	88	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.54	57	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.59	26	0.01	30	0.13	24	0.34	24	0.28	21	0.31
Poblocka 1999		49	0.43	34	0.00	49	0.04	60	0.04	55	0.04	57	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.40	37	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.45	20	0.01	34	0.05	32	0.21	35	0.15	30	0.18
Rangell 2001		40	0.48	14	0.02	18	0.07	21	0.36	10	0.38	14	0.37
Richter 1976		64	0.38	55	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.03	76	0.03
Rosen 1989		17	0.58	31	0.00	20	0.08	15	0.42	19	0.42	13	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		84	0.22	35	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.30	88	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	51	0.05	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.33	86	0.00	66	0.04	56	0.04	49	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.24	80	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	68	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.34	89	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.10	53	0.06
Rossi 2007		75	0.32	87	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.02	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.29	23	0.01	63	0.04	57	0.04	15	0.43	35	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		27	0.52	29	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.22	18	0.46	20	0.32
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.46	16	0.01	35	0.06	38	0.14	22	0.43	24	0.25
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.42	56	0.00	59	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.03	79	0.03
Shebanova 2002		2	0.68	6	0.05	6	0.12	3	0.59	6	0.52	3	0.55
Smith 1975		22	0.55	81	0.00	40	0.05	43	0.11	74	0.03	49	0.06
Sokolov 2002		62	0.39	76	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.03	74	0.03
Sztompka 1959		74	0.32	68	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03
Tomsic 1995		29	0.52	33	0.00	39	0.04	45	0.09	52	0.04	50	0.06
Uninsky 1932		52	0.43	27	0.01	69	0.04	72	0.04	53	0.05	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		55	0.42	48	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	62	0.04	64	0.04
Wasowski 1980		51	0.43	5	0.07	5	0.13	27	0.25	28	0.22	25	0.23
Zak 1937		1	0.68	1	0.18	1	0.18	6	0.55	8	0.48	4	0.51
Zak 1951		4	0.67	22	0.01	8	0.14	9	0.52	14	0.42	8	0.47
Average		9	0.63	30	0.00	9	0.14	5	0.56	61	0.04	33	0.15
Random 1		89	0.06	65	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	23	0.29	55	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.11	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	31	0.18	67	0.04
Random 3		90	0.02	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	52	0.05	90	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).