Perlemuter 1992

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