Shebanova 2002

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		33	0.63	71	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.11	50	0.05	51	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		77	0.36	83	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	81	0.02	87	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		6	0.73	13	0.01	10	0.12	4	0.54	21	0.35	12	0.43
Bacha 2000		13	0.69	58	0.00	21	0.11	16	0.47	5	0.52	8	0.49
Badura 1965		56	0.49	76	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	42	0.13	41	0.09
Barbosa 1983		45	0.55	21	0.01	34	0.11	30	0.26	29	0.32	25	0.29
Biret 1990		17	0.69	52	0.00	19	0.12	22	0.42	22	0.27	21	0.34
Blet 2003		39	0.59	23	0.01	53	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.05	60	0.05
Block 1995		53	0.52	45	0.00	63	0.03	72	0.03	38	0.14	56	0.06
Blumental 1952		60	0.47	43	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	32	0.16	36	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		28	0.64	39	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	36	0.18	39	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		24	0.66	77	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.25	30	0.26	27	0.25
Bunin 1987		75	0.36	53	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Bunin 1987b		74	0.36	37	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Chiu 1999		20	0.68	8	0.03	5	0.17	6	0.52	3	0.59	3	0.55
Cohen 1997		42	0.58	28	0.00	28	0.08	28	0.31	7	0.46	17	0.38
Cortot 1951		44	0.55	79	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	53	0.06	62	0.05
Csalog 1996		12	0.70	3	0.09	3	0.11	9	0.50	2	0.58	4	0.54
Czerny 1949		62	0.47	89	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	66	0.03	69	0.04
Czerny 1990		30	0.63	59	0.00	43	0.06	37	0.17	64	0.04	47	0.08
Duchoud 2007		41	0.58	12	0.02	35	0.11	29	0.28	41	0.13	31	0.19
Ezaki 2006		34	0.63	47	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	70	0.03	57	0.05
Falvay 1989		4	0.75	14	0.01	11	0.10	7	0.51	17	0.34	13	0.42
Farrell 1958		47	0.54	84	0.00	74	0.05	60	0.05	81	0.03	63	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.45	85	0.00	73	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.04
Fliere 1977		7	0.73	19	0.01	16	0.11	8	0.50	32	0.18	24	0.30
Fou 1978		18	0.69	34	0.00	14	0.11	14	0.48	22	0.36	14	0.42
Francois 1956		49	0.53	41	0.00	40	0.06	34	0.18	64	0.04	49	0.08
Friedman 1923		91	-0.10	63	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.09	55	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	79	0.03	89	0.02
Friedman 1930		87	0.08	51	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Garcia 2007		79	0.34	73	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.04	78	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.15	67	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.69	80	0.00	17	0.09	21	0.42	33	0.19	26	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994		43	0.56	64	0.00	56	0.05	59	0.05	66	0.03	71	0.04
Groot 1988		29	0.64	24	0.01	50	0.08	47	0.08	44	0.10	44	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		76	0.36	56	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	81	0.03	81	0.03
Hatto 1993		73	0.39	32	0.00	23	0.16	25	0.32	36	0.15	30	0.22
Hatto 1997		71	0.40	22	0.01	33	0.09	32	0.24	52	0.04	38	0.10
Horowitz 1949		54	0.52	18	0.01	52	0.05	58	0.05	56	0.04	65	0.04
Indjic 1988		68	0.41	65	0.00	22	0.11	26	0.32	33	0.16	29	0.23
Kapell 1951		48	0.54	86	0.00	67	0.05	55	0.05	68	0.03	64	0.04
Kissin 1993		1	0.81	1	0.34	1	0.34	1	0.67	2	0.70	1	0.68
Kushner 1989		9	0.72	11	0.02	12	0.10	3	0.56	11	0.40	9	0.47
Luisada 1991		35	0.62	4	0.05	6	0.13	23	0.38	15	0.39	15	0.38
Lushtak 2004		37	0.60	33	0.00	38	0.04	38	0.15	52	0.05	42	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.66	31	0.00	49	0.09	46	0.09	68	0.03	59	0.05
Magaloff 1978		26	0.64	60	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	74	0.03	54	0.06
Magin 1975		59	0.48	26	0.00	37	0.04	40	0.13	53	0.05	46	0.08
Michalowski 1933		80	0.32	57	0.00	66	0.04	61	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04
Milkina 1970		2	0.78	10	0.03	2	0.24	2	0.58	4	0.59	2	0.58
Mohovich 1999		36	0.61	17	0.01	58	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.03	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		16	0.69	9	0.03	8	0.13	11	0.49	4	0.54	7	0.51
Morozova 2008		50	0.53	25	0.00	31	0.06	33	0.21	48	0.05	37	0.10
Neighaus 1950		31	0.63	74	0.00	39	0.04	36	0.17	58	0.04	48	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.45	38	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.12	45	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		8	0.72	2	0.09	4	0.13	5	0.53	8	0.51	5	0.52
Osinska 1989		10	0.71	69	0.00	15	0.08	17	0.46	21	0.31	16	0.38
Pachmann 1927		51	0.53	75	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	36	0.22	35	0.11
Paderewski 1930		38	0.60	5	0.05	29	0.07	41	0.12	30	0.17	33	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		57	0.49	48	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	45	0.08	53	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.64	42	0.00	20	0.10	18	0.44	7	0.43	10	0.43
Poblocka 1999		11	0.71	7	0.04	24	0.10	20	0.43	26	0.28	20	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.47	81	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.03	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		83	0.26	61	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.03	85	0.02
Rangell 2001		21	0.67	16	0.01	25	0.13	15	0.47	19	0.28	19	0.36
Richter 1976		55	0.50	46	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	40	0.09	55	0.06
Rosen 1989		15	0.69	49	0.00	27	0.08	24	0.34	29	0.30	22	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.41	72	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.30	44	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.32	54	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		65	0.45	62	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.41	66	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	61	0.04	80	0.03
Rossi 2007		84	0.20	90	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	59	0.03	84	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		78	0.34	91	0.00	41	0.04	39	0.15	26	0.34	28	0.23
Rubinstein 1952		3	0.76	36	0.00	7	0.12	10	0.49	7	0.55	6	0.52
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.66	68	0.00	26	0.11	27	0.31	19	0.43	18	0.37
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.45	50	0.00	64	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.03	76	0.03
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		40	0.59	82	0.00	46	0.06	54	0.06	61	0.04	58	0.05
Sokolov 2002		52	0.53	40	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.03	72	0.03
Sztompka 1959		58	0.49	35	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	66	0.04	74	0.03
Tomsic 1995		19	0.68	27	0.00	30	0.06	35	0.18	37	0.14	32	0.16
Uninsky 1932		72	0.40	29	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	47	0.06	61	0.05
Uninsky 1971		63	0.46	78	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	56	0.05	67	0.04
Wasowski 1980		46	0.54	15	0.01	36	0.05	44	0.11	45	0.08	40	0.09
Zak 1937		22	0.67	30	0.00	9	0.11	13	0.48	15	0.38	11	0.43
Zak 1951		32	0.63	20	0.01	18	0.11	19	0.43	33	0.23	23	0.31
Average		5	0.75	6	0.04	13	0.10	12	0.48	67	0.03	34	0.12
Random 1		88	0.04	87	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	5	0.44	43	0.09
Random 2		89	-0.05	88	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	24	0.25	50	0.07
Random 3		85	0.18	70	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	21	0.28	52	0.07

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).