Pierdomenico 2008

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

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).