Garcia 2007b

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	0.04	13	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.40	17	0.01	5	0.15	8	0.39	34	0.19	6	0.27
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.33	37	0.00	28	0.06	17	0.24	80	0.03	28	0.08
Bacha 2000		48	0.18	11	0.02	21	0.06	38	0.10	61	0.04	36	0.06
Badura 1965		80	0.05	73	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Barbosa 1983		79	0.07	50	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.01	88	0.01
Biret 1990		10	0.35	18	0.01	15	0.06	11	0.27	82	0.02	33	0.07
Blet 2003		62	0.16	22	0.01	63	0.03	70	0.03	84	0.03	66	0.03
Block 1995		54	0.18	23	0.01	17	0.05	22	0.22	47	0.05	18	0.10
Blumental 1952		15	0.31	4	0.06	6	0.13	6	0.41	23	0.22	5	0.30
Boshniakovich 1969		11	0.35	44	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.21	76	0.03	27	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.38	12	0.02	7	0.09	7	0.40	49	0.05	14	0.14
Bunin 1987		24	0.27	70	0.00	46	0.04	58	0.04	78	0.03	72	0.03
Bunin 1987b		23	0.28	54	0.00	47	0.06	46	0.06	79	0.03	48	0.04
Chiu 1999		17	0.31	57	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	80	0.03	46	0.04
Cohen 1997		56	0.17	31	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	65	0.03	71	0.03
Cortot 1951		42	0.21	27	0.00	33	0.04	45	0.08	52	0.06	34	0.07
Csalog 1996		90	-0.15	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	89	0.01
Czerny 1949		70	0.12	80	0.00	62	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.02	82	0.02
Czerny 1990		64	0.15	81	0.00	57	0.04	52	0.04	81	0.03	73	0.03
Duchoud 2007		41	0.22	82	0.00	49	0.04	55	0.04	82	0.02	68	0.03
Ezaki 2006		38	0.24	35	0.00	51	0.04	59	0.04	88	0.02	55	0.03
Falvay 1989		76	0.08	45	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	60	0.03
Farrell 1958		7	0.38	1	0.27	1	0.27	2	0.60	8	0.33	2	0.44
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.16	74	0.00	60	0.04	56	0.04	59	0.04	51	0.04
Fliere 1977		35	0.25	71	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	71	0.04	43	0.05
Fou 1978		49	0.18	84	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.02	78	0.02
Francois 1956		87	-0.01	91	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.02	86	0.02
Friedman 1923		32	0.26	19	0.01	31	0.06	16	0.24	33	0.23	7	0.23
Friedman 1923b		33	0.26	7	0.02	30	0.04	19	0.22	32	0.22	8	0.22
Friedman 1930		19	0.29	41	0.00	25	0.05	18	0.24	71	0.04	17	0.10
Garcia 2007		1	0.53	2	0.23	2	0.31	1	0.62	1	0.68	1	0.65
Garcia 2007b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gierzod 1998		29	0.27	58	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.09	88	0.02	53	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.26	16	0.01	24	0.05	25	0.19	87	0.02	42	0.06
Groot 1988		75	0.09	33	0.00	76	0.03	67	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.32	40	0.00	40	0.04	27	0.16	84	0.03	35	0.07
Hatto 1993		18	0.30	87	0.00	26	0.05	14	0.25	31	0.18	9	0.21
Hatto 1997		27	0.27	72	0.00	39	0.05	32	0.14	69	0.03	41	0.06
Horowitz 1949		63	0.15	48	0.00	74	0.03	62	0.03	69	0.03	64	0.03
Indjic 1988		26	0.27	55	0.00	38	0.05	29	0.15	54	0.04	26	0.08
Kapell 1951		60	0.16	85	0.00	59	0.04	51	0.04	73	0.03	61	0.03
Kissin 1993		83	0.03	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.02	87	0.01
Kushner 1989		34	0.25	67	0.00	13	0.08	24	0.20	85	0.02	37	0.06
Luisada 1991		2	0.47	5	0.05	4	0.20	5	0.43	28	0.26	4	0.33
Lushtak 2004		21	0.28	51	0.00	55	0.04	54	0.04	80	0.03	69	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.21	75	0.00	52	0.05	48	0.05	86	0.03	49	0.04
Magaloff 1978		55	0.17	26	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.09	86	0.02	47	0.04
Magin 1975		16	0.31	64	0.00	12	0.10	13	0.26	39	0.14	11	0.19
Michalowski 1933		3	0.43	3	0.06	3	0.17	3	0.55	30	0.30	3	0.41
Milkina 1970		78	0.08	61	0.00	79	0.03	65	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.03
Mohovich 1999		53	0.18	42	0.00	75	0.04	53	0.04	77	0.03	70	0.03
Moravec 1969		89	-0.05	30	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	76	0.02
Morozova 2008		5	0.39	68	0.00	8	0.07	10	0.29	69	0.03	22	0.09
Neighaus 1950		9	0.36	69	0.00	16	0.05	12	0.27	77	0.03	24	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		85	0.02	49	0.00	70	0.03	63	0.03	42	0.10	44	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.28	77	0.00	44	0.04	41	0.09	89	0.02	50	0.04
Osinska 1989		68	0.13	88	0.00	68	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.02	77	0.02
Pachmann 1927		84	0.02	28	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.03	80	0.02
Paderewski 1930		72	0.10	14	0.01	29	0.04	37	0.11	65	0.03	39	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		57	0.17	36	0.00	20	0.06	31	0.15	77	0.03	29	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		12	0.33	8	0.02	10	0.08	15	0.25	61	0.04	16	0.10
Poblocka 1999		58	0.17	59	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		30	0.27	56	0.00	37	0.05	28	0.16	62	0.04	25	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.18	78	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	74	0.03	59	0.03
Rangell 2001		46	0.21	43	0.00	34	0.04	39	0.10	83	0.02	54	0.04
Richter 1976		86	0.00	60	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	78	0.03	79	0.02
Rosen 1989		20	0.29	89	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.15	72	0.03	32	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.08	65	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		40	0.22	90	0.00	36	0.06	20	0.22	55	0.04	21	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		28	0.27	21	0.01	14	0.07	9	0.35	41	0.11	10	0.20
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.09	29	0.00	58	0.04	57	0.04	86	0.02	75	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		45	0.21	63	0.00	22	0.05	26	0.17	55	0.05	23	0.09
Rossi 2007		37	0.24	10	0.02	11	0.06	21	0.22	32	0.14	12	0.18
Rubinstein 1939		52	0.18	25	0.00	61	0.03	64	0.03	33	0.25	20	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		88	-0.03	52	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		82	0.04	83	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	79	0.03	81	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		50	0.18	9	0.02	23	0.06	40	0.10	73	0.03	45	0.05
Shebanova 2002		65	0.15	38	0.00	78	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.03
Smith 1975		8	0.36	32	0.00	9	0.09	4	0.44	82	0.02	19	0.09
Sokolov 2002		43	0.21	79	0.00	48	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.02	58	0.03
Sztompka 1959		36	0.24	15	0.01	32	0.06	34	0.12	72	0.04	31	0.07
Tomsic 1995		59	0.17	6	0.02	77	0.03	66	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.03
Uninsky 1932		39	0.22	46	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	72	0.04	52	0.04
Uninsky 1971		69	0.13	53	0.00	67	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.03
Wasowski 1980		67	0.13	76	0.00	73	0.03	68	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.03
Zak 1937		71	0.12	34	0.00	18	0.05	35	0.12	72	0.04	30	0.07
Zak 1951		73	0.10	24	0.01	19	0.07	36	0.11	75	0.03	38	0.06
Average		25	0.27	39	0.00	41	0.06	33	0.13	87	0.03	40	0.06
Random 1		66	0.14	20	0.01	71	0.03	76	0.03	4	0.51	15	0.12
Random 2		91	-0.24	66	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.02	83	0.02
Random 3		47	0.20	47	0.00	45	0.04	43	0.09	18	0.33	13	0.17

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).