Uninsky 1932

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		16	0.62	11	0.01	27	0.07	18	0.43	32	0.21	20	0.30
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.44	78	0.00	46	0.05	50	0.05	48	0.04	62	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		30	0.54	28	0.00	26	0.06	22	0.38	34	0.17	24	0.25
Bacha 2000		79	0.24	27	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	82	0.02
Badura 1965		11	0.63	42	0.00	18	0.08	20	0.42	12	0.44	12	0.43
Barbosa 1983		18	0.61	9	0.01	33	0.11	29	0.32	26	0.35	19	0.33
Biret 1990		40	0.50	66	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.03	65	0.04
Blet 2003		8	0.65	17	0.01	21	0.09	21	0.41	21	0.34	17	0.37
Block 1995		72	0.33	45	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.04	63	0.04
Blumental 1952		29	0.54	23	0.00	34	0.08	32	0.27	13	0.32	21	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		34	0.52	30	0.00	6	0.07	40	0.16	46	0.10	37	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		76	0.30	57	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.02
Bunin 1987		6	0.67	88	0.00	10	0.09	5	0.50	18	0.41	9	0.45
Bunin 1987b		5	0.67	69	0.00	9	0.08	6	0.50	18	0.41	8	0.45
Chiu 1999		56	0.43	46	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.04	56	0.04
Cohen 1997		91	-0.02	79	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	75	0.03	87	0.02
Cortot 1951		12	0.63	4	0.02	5	0.12	9	0.46	10	0.48	6	0.47
Csalog 1996		84	0.19	21	0.01	77	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03
Czerny 1949		3	0.69	43	0.00	16	0.08	16	0.43	18	0.40	13	0.41
Czerny 1990		2	0.72	32	0.00	3	0.17	3	0.52	17	0.32	15	0.41
Duchoud 2007		15	0.62	72	0.00	20	0.07	14	0.44	25	0.38	14	0.41
Ezaki 2006		14	0.62	53	0.00	29	0.08	26	0.34	45	0.08	31	0.16
Falvay 1989		64	0.39	84	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.04	71	0.03
Farrell 1958		57	0.42	58	0.00	66	0.05	49	0.05	79	0.03	58	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.47	20	0.01	24	0.08	36	0.20	28	0.30	25	0.24
Fliere 1977		33	0.52	52	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.03	69	0.03
Fou 1978		78	0.24	80	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	77	0.03	84	0.02
Francois 1956		36	0.52	34	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.18	43	0.10	39	0.13
Friedman 1923		60	0.40	12	0.01	8	0.10	13	0.44	3	0.58	4	0.51
Friedman 1923b		58	0.41	33	0.00	7	0.08	11	0.45	3	0.58	3	0.51
Friedman 1930		52	0.44	19	0.01	13	0.09	15	0.44	5	0.48	7	0.46
Garcia 2007		55	0.43	61	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	16	0.36	32	0.16
Garcia 2007b		81	0.22	67	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	50	0.05	68	0.04
Gierzod 1998		35	0.52	24	0.00	35	0.06	31	0.29	35	0.18	27	0.23
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.48	39	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	70	0.03	79	0.03
Groot 1988		39	0.50	50	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.04	66	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.56	16	0.01	11	0.07	19	0.42	39	0.14	26	0.24
Hatto 1993		77	0.29	37	0.00	49	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.03	67	0.04
Hatto 1997		70	0.34	81	0.00	41	0.05	44	0.12	35	0.13	40	0.12
Horowitz 1949		50	0.45	8	0.01	55	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.03	75	0.03
Indjic 1988		75	0.31	65	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	55	0.04	61	0.04
Kapell 1951		25	0.55	14	0.01	22	0.07	23	0.37	30	0.31	18	0.34
Kissin 1993		66	0.38	29	0.00	74	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.02	76	0.03
Kushner 1989		27	0.55	44	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	80	0.03	50	0.06
Luisada 1991		59	0.40	56	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.04
Lushtak 2004		24	0.56	76	0.00	23	0.08	25	0.34	33	0.19	23	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.60	5	0.02	12	0.12	10	0.45	42	0.11	29	0.22
Magaloff 1978		67	0.37	89	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	83	0.03	70	0.03
Magin 1975		62	0.40	13	0.01	52	0.04	65	0.04	47	0.06	52	0.05
Michalowski 1933		31	0.54	62	0.00	14	0.07	12	0.44	18	0.42	11	0.43
Milkina 1970		74	0.32	82	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03
Mohovich 1999		21	0.58	60	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.22	58	0.04	43	0.09
Moravec 1969		45	0.48	15	0.01	53	0.04	60	0.04	45	0.08	49	0.06
Morozova 2008		26	0.55	68	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.17	71	0.03	48	0.07
Neighaus 1950		32	0.54	77	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.32	50	0.05	38	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.39	31	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.04	57	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.50	36	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.16	63	0.04	44	0.08
Osinska 1989		41	0.49	54	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	77	0.03	55	0.04
Pachmann 1927		83	0.21	47	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	76	0.03	85	0.02
Paderewski 1930		37	0.52	25	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.15	32	0.15	33	0.15
Perlemuter 1992		13	0.63	73	0.00	32	0.06	24	0.35	36	0.14	28	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.43	10	0.01	68	0.03	73	0.03	64	0.03	72	0.03
Poblocka 1999		49	0.46	22	0.00	25	0.06	35	0.22	38	0.16	30	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		9	0.64	41	0.00	15	0.07	7	0.46	5	0.49	5	0.47
Rachmaninoff 1923		17	0.62	6	0.02	4	0.12	4	0.51	11	0.38	10	0.44
Rangell 2001		69	0.36	71	0.00	75	0.05	56	0.05	82	0.02	80	0.03
Richter 1976		65	0.38	70	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	64	0.04	60	0.04
Rosen 1989		54	0.43	63	0.00	58	0.05	51	0.05	74	0.03	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		43	0.49	74	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.12	38	0.18	34	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.21	90	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.17	86	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.32	83	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.18	87	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.01	91	0.01
Rossi 2007		68	0.37	48	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	45	0.06	51	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.00	59	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		80	0.23	85	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		71	0.34	49	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.56	75	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.32	32	0.23	22	0.27
Shebanova 2002		61	0.40	3	0.03	67	0.06	47	0.06	64	0.04	53	0.05
Smith 1975		19	0.61	7	0.02	30	0.10	27	0.33	48	0.05	36	0.13
Sokolov 2002		10	0.64	51	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.43	28	0.34	16	0.38
Sztompka 1959		4	0.68	2	0.13	2	0.31	2	0.54	7	0.51	2	0.52
Tomsic 1995		28	0.54	38	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.25	64	0.04	42	0.10
Uninsky 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1971		1	0.87	1	0.54	1	0.54	1	0.74	1	0.72	1	0.73
Wasowski 1980		46	0.48	26	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	69	0.04	47	0.07
Zak 1937		44	0.48	64	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	62	0.05	59	0.04
Zak 1951		42	0.49	35	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.03	74	0.03
Average		7	0.67	18	0.01	17	0.08	8	0.46	48	0.04	35	0.14
Random 1		90	0.00	40	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	21	0.31	45	0.08
Random 2		89	0.00	55	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	9	0.39	41	0.11
Random 3		88	0.00	91	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	29	0.21	46	0.08

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).