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		62	0.29	70	0.00	63	0.12	45	0.12	45	0.07	61	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		69	0.21	72	0.00	64	0.06	68	0.06	50	0.07	65	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		1	0.72	2	0.20	2	0.46	1	0.89	1	0.92	2	0.90
Bacha 2000		46	0.39	58	0.00	47	0.08	58	0.08	7	0.59	44	0.22
Badura 1965		56	0.33	73	0.00	57	0.06	65	0.06	22	0.47	51	0.17
Barbosa 1983		42	0.41	82	0.00	39	0.08	40	0.35	7	0.66	40	0.48
Biret 1990		79	0.13	61	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Blet 2003		31	0.48	59	0.00	30	0.13	31	0.50	8	0.65	28	0.57
Block 1995		20	0.54	62	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.65	8	0.69	23	0.67
Blumental 1952		49	0.39	78	0.00	42	0.08	41	0.25	16	0.56	41	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		29	0.50	74	0.00	31	0.10	30	0.53	14	0.55	32	0.54
Brailowsky 1960		80	0.13	85	0.00	75	0.05	71	0.05	63	0.05	68	0.05
Bunin 1987		41	0.42	75	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.39	3	0.67	38	0.51
Bunin 1987b		40	0.43	56	0.00	41	0.16	39	0.39	3	0.67	36	0.51
Chiu 1999		8	0.60	18	0.00	8	0.19	6	0.81	1	0.80	7	0.80
Cohen 1997		66	0.24	83	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.03	79	0.03
Cortot 1951		67	0.22	84	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	52	0.05	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		47	0.39	71	0.00	48	0.08	50	0.08	14	0.53	46	0.21
Czerny 1949		88	-0.03	63	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01
Czerny 1990		12	0.58	19	0.00	10	0.18	10	0.76	1	0.89	6	0.82
Duchoud 2007		36	0.46	35	0.00	33	0.08	35	0.44	8	0.60	37	0.51
Ezaki 2006		70	0.21	40	0.00	71	0.04	75	0.04	60	0.05	71	0.04
Falvay 1989		58	0.33	52	0.00	46	0.08	59	0.08	41	0.13	60	0.10
Farrell 1958		73	0.18	86	0.00	73	0.05	70	0.05	69	0.04	74	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.04	87	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	85	0.02
Fliere 1977		5	0.65	8	0.02	4	0.30	3	0.86	2	0.85	4	0.85
Fou 1978		28	0.50	66	0.00	27	0.11	26	0.57	6	0.63	27	0.60
Francois 1956		82	0.09	55	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Friedman 1923		10	0.58	10	0.02	14	0.17	13	0.68	9	0.76	14	0.72
Friedman 1923b		13	0.58	5	0.03	13	0.11	14	0.68	9	0.76	13	0.72
Friedman 1930		11	0.58	4	0.03	15	0.24	16	0.66	10	0.71	20	0.68
Garcia 2007		38	0.43	34	0.00	36	0.09	32	0.47	7	0.65	31	0.55
Garcia 2007b		35	0.47	31	0.00	29	0.12	27	0.56	5	0.76	24	0.65
Gierzod 1998		65	0.26	88	0.00	62	0.08	52	0.08	35	0.26	56	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.17	42	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03
Groot 1988		16	0.56	21	0.00	20	0.11	18	0.66	7	0.70	21	0.68
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.41	53	0.00	55	0.09	48	0.09	60	0.05	64	0.07
Hatto 1993		9	0.59	15	0.00	6	0.16	7	0.77	4	0.80	10	0.78
Hatto 1997		57	0.33	46	0.00	53	0.07	60	0.07	38	0.17	58	0.11
Horowitz 1949		32	0.48	37	0.00	35	0.09	37	0.39	16	0.62	39	0.49
Indjic 1988		15	0.57	7	0.02	9	0.14	12	0.73	6	0.76	11	0.74
Kapell 1951		23	0.53	28	0.00	24	0.11	22	0.62	6	0.63	26	0.62
Kissin 1993		2	0.71	1	0.42	1	0.42	2	0.89	1	0.92	1	0.90
Kushner 1989		4	0.66	6	0.03	5	0.28	5	0.82	1	0.86	5	0.84
Luisada 1991		21	0.53	9	0.02	11	0.20	21	0.63	8	0.72	22	0.67
Lushtak 2004		51	0.38	23	0.00	54	0.07	63	0.07	12	0.46	49	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.53	43	0.00	22	0.08	25	0.60	4	0.69	25	0.64
Magaloff 1978		34	0.47	41	0.00	37	0.09	34	0.44	13	0.60	35	0.51
Magin 1975		24	0.52	20	0.00	25	0.13	23	0.61	8	0.80	17	0.70
Michalowski 1933		33	0.47	17	0.00	34	0.10	33	0.46	10	0.58	33	0.52
Milkina 1970		78	0.13	79	0.00	68	0.06	64	0.06	67	0.04	70	0.05
Mohovich 1999		63	0.28	47	0.00	65	0.07	61	0.07	58	0.06	66	0.06
Moravec 1969		50	0.38	60	0.00	52	0.08	56	0.08	21	0.38	50	0.17
Morozova 2008		25	0.52	44	0.00	19	0.14	19	0.65	1	0.71	19	0.68
Neighaus 1950		37	0.44	30	0.00	45	0.12	46	0.12	37	0.18	54	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		17	0.55	13	0.01	18	0.18	15	0.67	3	0.73	16	0.70
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.51	27	0.00	26	0.11	29	0.54	14	0.58	30	0.56
Osinska 1989		68	0.21	64	0.00	69	0.04	74	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04
Pachmann 1927		14	0.57	29	0.00	16	0.18	11	0.74	6	0.83	8	0.78
Paderewski 1930		18	0.55	36	0.00	21	0.14	17	0.66	3	0.77	15	0.71
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.49	11	0.01	32	0.08	36	0.41	13	0.64	34	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		26	0.51	49	0.00	28	0.13	24	0.60	1	0.76	18	0.68
Poblocka 1999		45	0.40	32	0.00	38	0.10	42	0.24	17	0.43	42	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		81	0.11	50	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.35	33	0.00	60	0.08	54	0.08	37	0.19	57	0.12
Rangell 2001		53	0.37	89	0.00	56	0.08	51	0.08	26	0.31	53	0.16
Richter 1976		3	0.68	3	0.10	3	0.31	4	0.85	1	0.89	3	0.87
Rosen 1989		39	0.43	45	0.00	44	0.09	43	0.18	27	0.44	43	0.28
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.18	76	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.08	24	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.07	67	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.17	80	0.00	74	0.06	67	0.06	75	0.02	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.03	81	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		76	0.14	68	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	58	0.05	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.20	77	0.00	67	0.08	55	0.08	54	0.07	62	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.32	54	0.00	58	0.06	69	0.06	48	0.06	67	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		48	0.39	38	0.00	43	0.09	44	0.18	27	0.26	45	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		61	0.29	26	0.00	49	0.09	49	0.09	18	0.46	47	0.20
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		77	0.14	90	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.02	84	0.02
Sokolov 2002		64	0.27	25	0.00	66	0.06	66	0.06	58	0.04	69	0.05
Sztompka 1959		7	0.60	12	0.01	12	0.15	9	0.76	3	0.80	9	0.78
Tomsic 1995		44	0.40	69	0.00	51	0.08	53	0.08	18	0.33	52	0.16
Uninsky 1932		6	0.61	14	0.01	7	0.15	8	0.76	8	0.72	12	0.74
Uninsky 1971		60	0.31	51	0.00	61	0.10	47	0.10	57	0.05	63	0.07
Wasowski 1980		19	0.54	16	0.00	17	0.13	28	0.55	16	0.58	29	0.56
Zak 1937		52	0.37	22	0.00	50	0.08	57	0.08	23	0.45	48	0.19
Zak 1951		55	0.34	57	0.00	59	0.07	62	0.07	35	0.27	55	0.14
Random 1		85	0.07	48	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	9	0.44	59	0.11
Random 2		89	-0.04	65	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.03	86	0.02
Random 3		87	0.01	39	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	57	0.03	87	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).