Average

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		40	0.56	17	0.01	29	0.09	33	0.25	1	0.77	33	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		80	0.40	71	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	6	0.69	85	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.72	4	0.10	3	0.23	1	0.75	2	0.91	1	0.83
Bacha 2000		76	0.45	88	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	4	0.68	76	0.16
Badura 1965		75	0.45	38	0.00	74	0.03	81	0.03	2	0.77	82	0.15
Barbosa 1983		44	0.55	58	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	1	0.80	56	0.20
Biret 1990		79	0.44	78	0.00	85	0.05	61	0.05	9	0.71	61	0.19
Blet 2003		30	0.60	26	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.25	1	0.83	31	0.46
Block 1995		13	0.65	14	0.01	13	0.13	10	0.57	1	0.87	11	0.70
Blumental 1952		68	0.48	53	0.00	60	0.04	70	0.04	2	0.79	65	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		33	0.58	23	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.46	1	0.85	17	0.63
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.44	55	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	1	0.78	63	0.18
Bunin 1987		53	0.53	79	0.00	54	0.08	46	0.08	3	0.78	46	0.25
Bunin 1987b		51	0.53	84	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	3	0.78	51	0.22
Chiu 1999		2	0.72	21	0.00	9	0.13	8	0.60	1	0.89	8	0.73
Cohen 1997		57	0.52	85	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	6	0.68	66	0.18
Cortot 1951		69	0.48	41	0.00	73	0.04	79	0.04	5	0.72	74	0.17
Csalog 1996		61	0.51	81	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	5	0.71	71	0.17
Czerny 1949		84	0.34	72	0.00	86	0.05	64	0.05	21	0.67	64	0.18
Czerny 1990		49	0.54	33	0.00	57	0.07	48	0.07	6	0.84	48	0.24
Duchoud 2007		32	0.58	69	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.25	1	0.82	32	0.45
Ezaki 2006		65	0.49	73	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	6	0.74	67	0.17
Falvay 1989		55	0.53	39	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	1	0.76	58	0.19
Farrell 1958		74	0.46	56	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	3	0.71	68	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.24	74	0.00	87	0.04	75	0.04	27	0.63	78	0.16
Fliere 1977		1	0.74	1	0.22	1	0.22	3	0.74	1	0.91	2	0.82
Fou 1978		25	0.61	27	0.00	21	0.09	25	0.39	1	0.84	25	0.57
Francois 1956		71	0.46	75	0.00	76	0.05	58	0.05	11	0.71	62	0.19
Friedman 1923		17	0.64	25	0.00	23	0.13	17	0.46	4	0.86	18	0.63
Friedman 1923b		18	0.64	16	0.01	22	0.08	16	0.49	4	0.87	16	0.65
Friedman 1930		12	0.65	8	0.03	14	0.11	15	0.49	3	0.87	15	0.65
Garcia 2007		60	0.52	45	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	1	0.79	45	0.28
Garcia 2007b		72	0.46	80	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	8	0.71	75	0.17
Gierzod 1998		82	0.37	35	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	6	0.75	72	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.53	50	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	4	0.81	47	0.24
Groot 1988		9	0.68	22	0.00	7	0.14	7	0.65	1	0.90	7	0.76
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.70	11	0.02	10	0.16	9	0.59	1	0.88	9	0.72
Hatto 1993		15	0.65	9	0.02	11	0.13	21	0.44	4	0.83	22	0.60
Hatto 1997		37	0.57	46	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.13	3	0.80	40	0.32
Horowitz 1949		34	0.58	20	0.01	44	0.05	43	0.11	1	0.84	44	0.30
Indjic 1988		23	0.61	40	0.00	25	0.10	26	0.36	4	0.83	27	0.55
Kapell 1951		36	0.58	51	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.12	1	0.77	42	0.30
Kissin 1993		52	0.53	61	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	3	0.85	54	0.21
Kushner 1989		21	0.63	24	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.31	2	0.85	29	0.51
Luisada 1991		14	0.65	43	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.39	1	0.87	24	0.58
Lushtak 2004		64	0.50	89	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	1	0.73	73	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.61	37	0.00	30	0.08	29	0.32	1	0.82	30	0.51
Magaloff 1978		24	0.61	28	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.45	1	0.86	19	0.62
Magin 1975		59	0.52	59	0.00	59	0.07	49	0.07	9	0.78	49	0.23
Michalowski 1933		38	0.57	36	0.00	39	0.04	39	0.13	1	0.79	39	0.32
Milkina 1970		81	0.40	82	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	6	0.68	77	0.16
Mohovich 1999		48	0.54	65	0.00	52	0.06	51	0.06	2	0.80	53	0.22
Moravec 1969		35	0.58	30	0.00	27	0.08	27	0.35	1	0.86	26	0.55
Morozova 2008		19	0.64	5	0.09	6	0.16	11	0.57	1	0.85	10	0.70
Neighaus 1950		7	0.69	2	0.17	2	0.18	2	0.74	1	0.90	3	0.82
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.60	18	0.01	31	0.08	28	0.35	1	0.82	28	0.54
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.68	6	0.03	12	0.18	12	0.56	1	0.84	12	0.69
Osinska 1989		43	0.55	63	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	2	0.82	50	0.22
Pachmann 1927		28	0.60	48	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.20	5	0.84	35	0.41
Paderewski 1930		46	0.55	60	0.00	51	0.06	54	0.06	2	0.81	52	0.22
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.60	52	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.18	2	0.87	36	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.54	42	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	2	0.73	59	0.19
Poblocka 1999		41	0.56	47	0.00	33	0.11	34	0.22	1	0.82	34	0.42
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.46	66	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	8	0.75	80	0.15
Rachmaninoff 1923		39	0.57	70	0.00	42	0.05	37	0.15	1	0.85	37	0.36
Rangell 2001		56	0.52	13	0.02	50	0.05	56	0.05	1	0.76	60	0.19
Richter 1976		8	0.69	32	0.00	15	0.11	14	0.52	3	0.87	13	0.67
Rosen 1989		11	0.67	10	0.02	8	0.14	6	0.67	1	0.90	6	0.78
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.51	67	0.00	66	0.03	80	0.03	5	0.79	81	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.33	90	0.00	84	0.04	69	0.04	10	0.72	70	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.36	68	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	9	0.77	83	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.47	44	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	5	0.77	55	0.21
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.32	83	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	8	0.68	79	0.16
Rossi 2007		88	0.19	86	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	30	0.25	88	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.49	31	0.00	68	0.03	84	0.03	4	0.70	84	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		58	0.52	19	0.01	47	0.05	62	0.05	1	0.81	57	0.20
Rubinstein 1966		22	0.62	7	0.03	17	0.10	22	0.44	1	0.81	21	0.60
Schilhawsky 1960		77	0.44	64	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	9	0.62	86	0.14
Shebanova 2002		3	0.72	12	0.02	5	0.20	4	0.73	1	0.90	4	0.81
Smith 1975		67	0.49	62	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	8	0.71	87	0.12
Sokolov 2002		50	0.54	29	0.00	35	0.04	41	0.12	1	0.78	41	0.31
Sztompka 1959		16	0.64	34	0.00	16	0.10	13	0.53	1	0.85	14	0.67
Tomsic 1995		62	0.51	49	0.00	49	0.04	65	0.04	1	0.76	69	0.17
Uninsky 1932		5	0.70	3	0.10	4	0.18	5	0.71	1	0.90	5	0.80
Uninsky 1971		27	0.60	15	0.01	18	0.09	20	0.45	1	0.83	20	0.61
Wasowski 1980		20	0.64	76	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.42	1	0.84	23	0.59
Zak 1937		42	0.56	54	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.14	2	0.82	38	0.34
Zak 1951		45	0.55	57	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.11	2	0.83	43	0.30
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		90	-0.01	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	69	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.01	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	50	0.05	89	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.06	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	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).