Lushtak 2004

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		30	0.63	48	0.00	39	0.05	27	0.22	23	0.28	34	0.25
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.50	63	0.00	21	0.07	34	0.18	20	0.34	32	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.74	30	0.00	11	0.08	12	0.48	8	0.50	12	0.49
Bacha 2000		70	0.46	64	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	33	0.21	63	0.08
Badura 1965		46	0.56	83	0.00	45	0.06	43	0.11	17	0.41	36	0.21
Barbosa 1983		23	0.65	27	0.00	24	0.07	21	0.35	6	0.51	17	0.42
Biret 1990		28	0.63	7	0.02	10	0.07	17	0.40	7	0.46	16	0.43
Blet 2003		7	0.74	43	0.00	12	0.08	10	0.51	3	0.54	8	0.52
Block 1995		79	0.37	60	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	66	0.04	86	0.03
Blumental 1952		72	0.44	39	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	33	0.14	69	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		37	0.60	11	0.02	55	0.03	68	0.03	25	0.26	60	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.54	66	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	64	0.04	83	0.03
Bunin 1987		2	0.78	14	0.02	3	0.15	3	0.60	3	0.58	3	0.59
Bunin 1987b		3	0.78	18	0.01	4	0.15	4	0.60	3	0.58	2	0.59
Chiu 1999		39	0.59	31	0.00	56	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.31	49	0.11
Cohen 1997		77	0.41	44	0.00	78	0.02	84	0.02	16	0.37	61	0.09
Cortot 1951		40	0.58	91	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	22	0.34	46	0.14
Csalog 1996		73	0.43	24	0.01	67	0.03	70	0.03	23	0.36	53	0.10
Czerny 1949		49	0.55	65	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	30	0.26	51	0.11
Czerny 1990		38	0.59	76	0.00	42	0.05	36	0.16	37	0.19	42	0.17
Duchoud 2007		22	0.65	10	0.02	8	0.09	15	0.44	9	0.47	15	0.45
Ezaki 2006		4	0.78	5	0.04	2	0.13	2	0.60	4	0.56	4	0.58
Falvay 1989		17	0.68	55	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.25	26	0.26	30	0.25
Farrell 1958		43	0.57	32	0.00	62	0.03	71	0.03	17	0.27	57	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.64	68	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	10	0.45	43	0.16
Fliere 1977		14	0.69	34	0.00	23	0.07	18	0.37	22	0.28	24	0.32
Fou 1978		16	0.68	4	0.04	27	0.06	26	0.25	31	0.32	26	0.28
Francois 1956		52	0.54	53	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.17	30	0.19	41	0.18
Friedman 1923		88	0.20	50	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	44	0.12	76	0.05
Friedman 1923b		87	0.21	29	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	44	0.13	75	0.05
Friedman 1930		75	0.42	35	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	23	0.35	48	0.12
Garcia 2007		74	0.42	84	0.00	76	0.02	85	0.02	30	0.25	68	0.07
Garcia 2007b		83	0.28	79	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	54	0.04	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		33	0.62	28	0.00	37	0.04	37	0.16	17	0.26	37	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		60	0.51	42	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04	80	0.04
Groot 1988		35	0.61	51	0.00	33	0.06	42	0.12	46	0.06	67	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.64	33	0.00	20	0.08	13	0.46	3	0.46	14	0.46
Hatto 1993		65	0.49	77	0.00	35	0.05	39	0.14	16	0.36	35	0.22
Hatto 1997		41	0.58	8	0.02	18	0.08	23	0.35	8	0.51	18	0.42
Horowitz 1949		66	0.49	57	0.00	73	0.04	60	0.04	47	0.06	74	0.05
Indjic 1988		55	0.53	80	0.00	26	0.06	30	0.20	14	0.40	27	0.28
Kapell 1951		20	0.66	21	0.01	22	0.07	20	0.35	12	0.47	20	0.41
Kissin 1993		32	0.62	19	0.01	57	0.04	65	0.04	42	0.17	65	0.08
Kushner 1989		57	0.52	38	0.00	52	0.05	53	0.05	54	0.04	78	0.04
Luisada 1991		47	0.56	86	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.09	44	0.12	52	0.10
Lushtak 2004		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.63	20	0.01	49	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.10	64	0.08
Magaloff 1978		42	0.58	3	0.05	17	0.08	28	0.21	37	0.17	38	0.19
Magin 1975		71	0.45	69	0.00	77	0.03	74	0.03	50	0.05	77	0.04
Michalowski 1933		78	0.40	61	0.00	61	0.04	54	0.04	28	0.32	50	0.11
Milkina 1970		61	0.50	45	0.00	74	0.04	58	0.04	55	0.05	79	0.04
Mohovich 1999		13	0.69	12	0.02	19	0.09	14	0.44	7	0.52	13	0.48
Moravec 1969		76	0.42	70	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	66	0.04	82	0.03
Morozova 2008		24	0.65	46	0.00	36	0.04	40	0.14	13	0.26	39	0.19
Neighaus 1950		6	0.74	6	0.04	15	0.09	8	0.51	9	0.52	9	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		85	0.27	87	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	51	0.04	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.70	22	0.01	9	0.07	7	0.52	5	0.55	7	0.53
Osinska 1989		51	0.54	26	0.00	53	0.04	64	0.04	30	0.22	55	0.09
Pachmann 1927		45	0.57	9	0.02	28	0.06	32	0.19	16	0.47	25	0.30
Paderewski 1930		44	0.57	17	0.01	58	0.04	61	0.04	10	0.39	47	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		18	0.67	81	0.00	32	0.06	24	0.30	15	0.40	23	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		58	0.51	85	0.00	64	0.04	59	0.04	43	0.10	71	0.06
Poblocka 1999		10	0.71	13	0.02	6	0.08	6	0.54	3	0.58	5	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		67	0.49	74	0.00	63	0.04	56	0.04	30	0.22	56	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.53	88	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	23	0.28	44	0.14
Rangell 2001		68	0.48	23	0.01	68	0.03	75	0.03	20	0.26	62	0.09
Richter 1976		34	0.62	75	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.13	5	0.48	31	0.25
Rosen 1989		53	0.53	58	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	59	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.46	89	0.00	65	0.04	55	0.04	33	0.24	54	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.36	78	0.00	83	0.02	81	0.02	56	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.34	62	0.00	84	0.03	69	0.03	51	0.05	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		62	0.50	47	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	39	0.14	72	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.35	71	0.00	34	0.05	44	0.09	45	0.08	66	0.08
Rossi 2007		84	0.27	49	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	39	0.11	70	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.24	72	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	44	0.12	73	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.50	2	0.06	29	0.07	38	0.15	31	0.22	40	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		56	0.52	54	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	33	0.21	58	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		12	0.70	40	0.00	5	0.14	11	0.49	5	0.51	10	0.50
Shebanova 2002		36	0.60	15	0.01	59	0.05	52	0.05	38	0.15	59	0.09
Smith 1975		9	0.72	36	0.00	7	0.10	5	0.56	3	0.43	11	0.49
Sokolov 2002		15	0.69	67	0.00	13	0.11	16	0.41	18	0.41	19	0.41
Sztompka 1959		21	0.66	59	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	29	0.33	45	0.14
Tomsic 1995		5	0.75	25	0.00	16	0.10	9	0.51	3	0.58	6	0.54
Uninsky 1932		48	0.56	56	0.00	40	0.05	33	0.19	25	0.34	33	0.25
Uninsky 1971		31	0.63	16	0.01	14	0.10	19	0.36	19	0.42	22	0.39
Wasowski 1980		59	0.51	37	0.00	41	0.06	31	0.19	15	0.32	29	0.25
Zak 1937		25	0.65	41	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.21	16	0.35	28	0.27
Zak 1951		19	0.67	52	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.35	10	0.48	21	0.41
Average		1	0.79	1	0.47	1	0.47	1	0.72	5	0.58	1	0.65
Random 1		90	-0.10	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.21	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.09	73	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	56	0.04	88	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).