Harasiewicz 1955

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