Tomsic 1995

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		10	0.77	20	0.01	17	0.10	12	0.48	10	0.40	11	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.49	28	0.01	61	0.04	57	0.04	44	0.10	62	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		34	0.65	68	0.00	38	0.05	41	0.11	49	0.05	59	0.07
Bacha 2000		47	0.62	48	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	23	0.31	40	0.11
Badura 1965		61	0.57	8	0.04	19	0.09	22	0.33	7	0.54	15	0.42
Barbosa 1983		53	0.60	63	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.22	24	0.37	29	0.29
Biret 1990		45	0.62	59	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	65	0.03	86	0.03
Blet 2003		15	0.74	60	0.00	30	0.07	23	0.31	22	0.34	24	0.32
Block 1995		52	0.60	57	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	37	0.16	52	0.08
Blumental 1952		83	0.28	49	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		42	0.63	46	0.00	50	0.04	54	0.04	29	0.21	49	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.64	17	0.01	65	0.03	75	0.03	53	0.05	70	0.04
Bunin 1987		22	0.71	22	0.01	23	0.07	19	0.36	22	0.36	21	0.36
Bunin 1987b		23	0.71	12	0.02	24	0.10	20	0.36	22	0.36	20	0.36
Chiu 1999		67	0.52	29	0.01	54	0.04	52	0.04	45	0.09	61	0.06
Cohen 1997		80	0.33	67	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	67	0.03	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		68	0.52	80	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.06	75	0.04
Csalog 1996		65	0.54	14	0.01	57	0.04	58	0.04	28	0.29	42	0.11
Czerny 1949		58	0.57	47	0.00	48	0.04	62	0.04	49	0.06	67	0.05
Czerny 1990		19	0.73	61	0.00	18	0.10	21	0.36	19	0.30	23	0.33
Duchoud 2007		49	0.61	87	0.00	47	0.05	49	0.05	43	0.11	58	0.07
Ezaki 2006		3	0.84	4	0.07	2	0.12	2	0.62	5	0.55	2	0.58
Falvay 1989		5	0.83	34	0.00	6	0.11	5	0.55	8	0.49	4	0.52
Farrell 1958		51	0.61	71	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.04	79	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		38	0.64	52	0.00	56	0.04	50	0.04	29	0.28	43	0.11
Fliere 1977		11	0.77	23	0.01	14	0.08	13	0.44	15	0.37	18	0.40
Fou 1978		8	0.78	5	0.06	8	0.11	8	0.53	7	0.51	5	0.52
Francois 1956		26	0.69	42	0.00	15	0.08	17	0.37	17	0.32	22	0.34
Friedman 1923		89	0.00	77	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.06	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.01	91	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.06	85	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.19	79	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.05	73	0.04
Garcia 2007		78	0.39	85	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	42	0.13	64	0.06
Garcia 2007b		86	0.17	64	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	66	0.03	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		48	0.62	73	0.00	37	0.05	44	0.09	59	0.04	63	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.69	26	0.01	25	0.07	24	0.31	25	0.27	30	0.29
Groot 1988		4	0.83	7	0.04	5	0.12	6	0.54	5	0.50	6	0.52
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.63	2	0.08	4	0.12	7	0.54	8	0.44	8	0.49
Hatto 1993		79	0.35	84	0.00	71	0.03	69	0.03	52	0.04	87	0.03
Hatto 1997		74	0.44	38	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	63	0.03	81	0.03
Horowitz 1949		60	0.57	54	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.13	28	0.26	36	0.18
Indjic 1988		77	0.39	75	0.00	63	0.03	71	0.03	60	0.03	80	0.03
Kapell 1951		41	0.64	72	0.00	70	0.04	63	0.04	46	0.06	66	0.05
Kissin 1993		7	0.80	31	0.00	9	0.10	14	0.42	15	0.45	12	0.43
Kushner 1989		27	0.69	41	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.27	34	0.22	32	0.24
Luisada 1991		36	0.65	30	0.01	33	0.07	35	0.17	36	0.19	34	0.18
Lushtak 2004		12	0.75	3	0.08	7	0.10	3	0.58	9	0.51	3	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.82	27	0.01	10	0.13	9	0.53	17	0.41	9	0.47
Magaloff 1978		21	0.72	50	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.21	30	0.26	33	0.23
Magin 1975		63	0.55	66	0.00	59	0.04	55	0.04	42	0.11	54	0.07
Michalowski 1933		84	0.26	88	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	51	0.05	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		13	0.75	15	0.01	21	0.07	28	0.26	17	0.38	26	0.31
Mohovich 1999		1	0.87	1	0.21	1	0.21	1	0.65	3	0.58	1	0.61
Moravec 1969		57	0.57	53	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	67	0.03	76	0.03
Morozova 2008		56	0.59	16	0.01	39	0.04	36	0.15	24	0.18	37	0.16
Neighaus 1950		9	0.78	39	0.00	12	0.15	11	0.49	17	0.45	10	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.41	86	0.00	84	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.03	78	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		35	0.65	36	0.00	36	0.05	40	0.11	58	0.04	55	0.07
Osinska 1989		44	0.62	51	0.00	51	0.04	61	0.04	43	0.11	53	0.07
Pachmann 1927		39	0.64	18	0.01	34	0.05	34	0.17	9	0.52	28	0.30
Paderewski 1930		55	0.59	69	0.00	60	0.05	48	0.05	49	0.04	71	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		18	0.73	10	0.02	16	0.09	15	0.39	7	0.46	14	0.42
Pierdomenico 2008		46	0.62	89	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	33	0.18	41	0.11
Poblocka 1999		24	0.70	65	0.00	44	0.05	39	0.13	41	0.15	39	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.57	25	0.01	53	0.04	51	0.04	35	0.17	51	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		71	0.49	33	0.00	40	0.04	43	0.09	40	0.11	45	0.10
Rangell 2001		32	0.66	40	0.00	52	0.04	56	0.04	28	0.22	50	0.09
Richter 1976		30	0.69	24	0.01	22	0.08	25	0.30	6	0.47	19	0.38
Rosen 1989		40	0.64	70	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	46	0.05	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.50	82	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	44	0.09	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.47	74	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	37	0.17	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.43	81	0.00	80	0.04	53	0.04	40	0.11	60	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		62	0.56	90	0.00	67	0.03	77	0.03	43	0.11	65	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.49	83	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	44	0.09	69	0.05
Rossi 2007		82	0.28	43	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	16	0.24	44	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.28	45	0.00	86	0.03	72	0.03	64	0.04	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		25	0.70	6	0.05	20	0.07	29	0.23	20	0.45	25	0.32
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.73	21	0.01	27	0.07	26	0.29	3	0.64	13	0.43
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.59	78	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.10	51	0.05	57	0.07
Shebanova 2002		31	0.68	32	0.00	43	0.05	37	0.14	35	0.18	38	0.16
Smith 1975		16	0.73	13	0.02	11	0.10	16	0.38	28	0.24	27	0.30
Sokolov 2002		29	0.69	44	0.00	35	0.04	32	0.21	33	0.27	31	0.24
Sztompka 1959		33	0.65	55	0.00	46	0.05	46	0.05	36	0.22	46	0.10
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		64	0.54	37	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	33	0.25	48	0.10
Uninsky 1971		50	0.61	35	0.00	55	0.05	47	0.05	36	0.21	47	0.10
Wasowski 1980		66	0.52	11	0.02	31	0.07	33	0.18	30	0.18	35	0.18
Zak 1937		20	0.72	76	0.00	26	0.09	18	0.37	10	0.45	16	0.41
Zak 1951		14	0.75	9	0.03	13	0.09	10	0.51	7	0.50	7	0.50
Average		2	0.84	19	0.01	3	0.11	4	0.57	24	0.29	17	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.08	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	45	0.12	83	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.20	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		87	0.01	58	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	79	0.02	91	0.01

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).