Groot 1988

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		11	0.78	18	0.01	20	0.09	20	0.36	18	0.33	24	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.42	40	0.00	80	0.03	64	0.03	47	0.04	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		71	0.51	70	0.00	75	0.04	61	0.04	56	0.04	70	0.04
Bacha 2000		51	0.61	52	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	38	0.14	56	0.06
Badura 1965		70	0.52	44	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	44	0.11	55	0.07
Barbosa 1983		40	0.65	35	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.32	3	0.52	17	0.41
Biret 1990		54	0.61	46	0.00	70	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	89	0.02
Blet 2003		36	0.67	68	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04
Block 1995		30	0.68	61	0.00	43	0.04	41	0.12	18	0.30	37	0.19
Blumental 1952		85	0.22	48	0.00	73	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		42	0.65	78	0.00	36	0.05	38	0.16	12	0.37	35	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.72	17	0.01	30	0.06	25	0.25	5	0.49	23	0.35
Bunin 1987		29	0.69	54	0.00	37	0.04	28	0.24	19	0.39	27	0.31
Bunin 1987b		28	0.69	62	0.00	38	0.07	29	0.24	19	0.38	28	0.30
Chiu 1999		72	0.51	74	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.13	28	0.25	38	0.18
Cohen 1997		76	0.34	91	0.00	82	0.03	70	0.03	46	0.06	71	0.04
Cortot 1951		68	0.53	45	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.05	74	0.04
Csalog 1996		55	0.60	59	0.00	58	0.03	69	0.03	35	0.24	50	0.08
Czerny 1949		48	0.63	58	0.00	39	0.05	43	0.11	56	0.05	54	0.07
Czerny 1990		15	0.74	49	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.24	43	0.11	40	0.16
Duchoud 2007		60	0.59	32	0.00	77	0.03	72	0.03	53	0.04	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		13	0.76	37	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.36	23	0.28	26	0.32
Falvay 1989		4	0.84	3	0.09	3	0.18	2	0.64	3	0.61	1	0.62
Farrell 1958		32	0.68	63	0.00	57	0.03	67	0.03	18	0.26	46	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		52	0.61	20	0.01	64	0.03	66	0.03	36	0.23	51	0.08
Fliere 1977		8	0.80	7	0.04	14	0.08	8	0.49	13	0.39	14	0.44
Fou 1978		19	0.73	28	0.00	17	0.07	10	0.46	13	0.46	11	0.46
Francois 1956		6	0.82	13	0.01	7	0.10	6	0.50	6	0.54	4	0.52
Friedman 1923		88	0.01	55	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.05	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.02	38	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	59	0.05	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		83	0.23	85	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	37	0.17	53	0.07
Garcia 2007		77	0.33	60	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	56	0.04	68	0.04
Garcia 2007b		86	0.09	30	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	67	0.03	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		49	0.63	50	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.08	50	0.04	60	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.78	26	0.00	15	0.07	13	0.42	15	0.36	19	0.39
Groot 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Harasiewicz 1955		63	0.57	25	0.00	9	0.09	16	0.40	17	0.34	20	0.37
Hatto 1993		84	0.22	83	0.00	84	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.03	84	0.03
Hatto 1997		78	0.32	67	0.00	81	0.04	55	0.04	72	0.03	82	0.03
Horowitz 1949		23	0.71	15	0.01	12	0.07	15	0.40	5	0.51	12	0.45
Indjic 1988		81	0.26	71	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.02	87	0.02
Kapell 1951		41	0.65	82	0.00	67	0.03	65	0.03	47	0.06	63	0.04
Kissin 1993		14	0.74	29	0.00	23	0.11	17	0.39	18	0.41	18	0.40
Kushner 1989		20	0.72	86	0.00	44	0.05	40	0.13	41	0.16	42	0.14
Luisada 1991		69	0.52	39	0.00	79	0.03	73	0.03	66	0.04	76	0.03
Lushtak 2004		53	0.61	84	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	42	0.12	52	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.85	42	0.00	8	0.09	7	0.50	12	0.45	9	0.47
Magaloff 1978		7	0.81	4	0.08	4	0.14	4	0.51	9	0.46	6	0.48
Magin 1975		74	0.48	34	0.00	53	0.04	58	0.04	61	0.03	78	0.03
Michalowski 1933		82	0.24	36	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	65	0.04	80	0.03
Milkina 1970		9	0.79	9	0.02	21	0.11	19	0.37	9	0.45	16	0.41
Mohovich 1999		1	0.86	1	0.25	1	0.24	3	0.64	4	0.58	2	0.61
Moravec 1969		38	0.66	57	0.00	65	0.03	77	0.03	53	0.04	75	0.03
Morozova 2008		66	0.56	31	0.00	32	0.05	32	0.19	25	0.18	39	0.18
Neighaus 1950		12	0.76	56	0.00	16	0.08	9	0.48	19	0.43	13	0.45
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.55	66	0.00	71	0.03	85	0.03	65	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		62	0.58	51	0.00	74	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.03	79	0.03
Osinska 1989		26	0.69	72	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	38	0.16	45	0.09
Pachmann 1927		33	0.68	65	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.38	3	0.60	7	0.48
Paderewski 1930		46	0.64	43	0.00	62	0.03	76	0.03	47	0.06	64	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.73	12	0.02	11	0.07	11	0.46	3	0.56	5	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.62	87	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	28	0.23	43	0.11
Poblocka 1999		31	0.68	27	0.00	56	0.04	53	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.59	88	0.00	63	0.03	68	0.03	43	0.11	59	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.60	19	0.01	33	0.07	33	0.19	27	0.24	36	0.21
Rangell 2001		44	0.65	81	0.00	54	0.04	54	0.04	57	0.05	73	0.04
Richter 1976		25	0.70	24	0.00	29	0.05	31	0.21	16	0.33	33	0.26
Rosen 1989		34	0.68	41	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	36	0.24	44	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.64	5	0.06	5	0.10	30	0.23	12	0.48	25	0.33
Rosenthal 1931		58	0.60	73	0.00	18	0.09	26	0.25	6	0.52	21	0.36
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.56	76	0.00	31	0.05	34	0.17	10	0.43	32	0.27
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.67	53	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.17	10	0.48	30	0.29
Rosenthal 1931d		43	0.65	79	0.00	40	0.04	37	0.16	8	0.45	31	0.27
Rossi 2007		80	0.28	80	0.00	76	0.03	71	0.03	36	0.12	57	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.31	33	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	43	0.12	58	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		18	0.73	22	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.27	16	0.48	22	0.36
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.70	23	0.00	28	0.07	36	0.17	7	0.53	29	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		35	0.67	69	0.00	45	0.06	42	0.11	36	0.20	41	0.15
Shebanova 2002		47	0.64	14	0.01	35	0.06	44	0.10	47	0.08	47	0.09
Smith 1975		27	0.69	64	0.00	24	0.11	23	0.30	32	0.20	34	0.24
Sokolov 2002		39	0.66	75	0.00	50	0.05	47	0.05	59	0.04	62	0.04
Sztompka 1959		64	0.57	10	0.02	61	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.06	65	0.04
Tomsic 1995		5	0.83	8	0.03	6	0.10	5	0.50	6	0.54	3	0.52
Uninsky 1932		73	0.50	47	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	59	0.05	67	0.04
Uninsky 1971		57	0.60	21	0.01	52	0.04	57	0.04	45	0.15	49	0.08
Wasowski 1980		59	0.59	16	0.01	59	0.05	52	0.05	33	0.14	48	0.08
Zak 1937		22	0.71	11	0.02	13	0.08	14	0.40	11	0.44	15	0.42
Zak 1951		16	0.74	6	0.04	10	0.08	12	0.46	9	0.48	10	0.47
Average		2	0.85	2	0.18	2	0.19	1	0.66	16	0.35	8	0.48
Random 1		90	-0.10	77	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	37	0.18	69	0.04
Random 2		91	-0.10	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	75	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.06	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01

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).