Groot 1988

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		39	0.41	10	0.01	16	0.10	25	0.39	8	0.60	25	0.48
Anderszewski 2003		82	0.16	73	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	61	0.04	86	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.62	19	0.00	3	0.20	3	0.78	9	0.80	2	0.79
Bacha 2000		75	0.21	88	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	62	0.05	78	0.04
Badura 1965		68	0.26	45	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.04	82	0.04
Barbosa 1983		58	0.34	21	0.00	48	0.05	67	0.05	19	0.49	50	0.16
Biret 1990		72	0.24	89	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	48	0.08	77	0.05
Blet 2003		19	0.48	43	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.45	7	0.68	17	0.55
Block 1995		31	0.43	74	0.00	32	0.07	22	0.42	21	0.50	27	0.46
Blumental 1952		61	0.32	50	0.00	59	0.06	64	0.06	32	0.30	60	0.13
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.40	39	0.00	53	0.07	55	0.07	39	0.24	61	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		83	0.16	84	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Bunin 1987		46	0.40	27	0.00	17	0.08	33	0.25	29	0.41	39	0.32
Bunin 1987b		45	0.40	41	0.00	22	0.08	36	0.24	27	0.40	40	0.31
Chiu 1999		32	0.43	40	0.00	34	0.07	29	0.34	26	0.46	29	0.40
Cohen 1997		63	0.30	77	0.00	68	0.05	69	0.05	44	0.11	71	0.07
Cortot 1951		80	0.17	31	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03	89	0.03
Csalog 1996		56	0.36	70	0.00	60	0.06	66	0.06	33	0.31	56	0.14
Czerny 1949		81	0.17	32	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	49	0.07	75	0.05
Czerny 1990		13	0.52	3	0.04	8	0.16	10	0.60	8	0.80	9	0.69
Duchoud 2007		30	0.43	81	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.24	18	0.52	35	0.35
Ezaki 2006		65	0.30	58	0.00	64	0.06	61	0.06	33	0.32	54	0.14
Falvay 1989		41	0.41	25	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.20	9	0.52	38	0.32
Farrell 1958		77	0.20	82	0.00	81	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.05	79	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.03	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Fliere 1977		3	0.61	7	0.02	4	0.24	5	0.77	12	0.77	3	0.77
Fou 1978		51	0.37	71	0.00	57	0.09	47	0.09	42	0.18	57	0.13
Francois 1956		62	0.31	37	0.00	69	0.06	56	0.06	31	0.41	53	0.16
Friedman 1923		35	0.42	62	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.20	33	0.44	41	0.30
Friedman 1923b		33	0.43	26	0.00	36	0.07	31	0.26	34	0.49	33	0.36
Friedman 1930		25	0.46	46	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.39	18	0.61	23	0.49
Garcia 2007		59	0.34	61	0.00	49	0.07	54	0.07	31	0.37	51	0.16
Garcia 2007b		15	0.49	18	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.36	11	0.68	24	0.49
Gierzod 1998		78	0.17	42	0.00	51	0.05	70	0.05	34	0.27	63	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.36	15	0.01	25	0.08	39	0.20	20	0.59	36	0.34
Groot 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.42	29	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.17	24	0.40	43	0.26
Hatto 1993		9	0.54	56	0.00	7	0.19	6	0.73	9	0.69	7	0.71
Hatto 1997		43	0.40	49	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.14	15	0.47	42	0.26
Horowitz 1949		24	0.47	34	0.00	30	0.10	34	0.25	23	0.54	31	0.37
Indjic 1988		10	0.52	20	0.00	10	0.15	9	0.69	8	0.71	8	0.70
Kapell 1951		55	0.36	85	0.00	58	0.06	63	0.06	59	0.06	73	0.06
Kissin 1993		16	0.48	23	0.00	19	0.09	15	0.53	16	0.68	14	0.60
Kushner 1989		18	0.48	28	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.37	15	0.57	26	0.46
Luisada 1991		4	0.61	9	0.01	2	0.19	2	0.80	2	0.83	1	0.81
Lushtak 2004		79	0.17	36	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	66	0.05	88	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		42	0.41	35	0.00	56	0.08	48	0.08	32	0.22	58	0.13
Magaloff 1978		34	0.42	47	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.22	19	0.49	37	0.33
Magin 1975		5	0.60	2	0.10	5	0.27	7	0.71	5	0.84	4	0.77
Michalowski 1933		14	0.52	17	0.00	18	0.08	13	0.54	7	0.64	16	0.59
Milkina 1970		69	0.24	64	0.00	66	0.06	62	0.06	34	0.34	55	0.14
Mohovich 1999		60	0.33	22	0.00	52	0.08	49	0.08	26	0.35	49	0.17
Moravec 1969		48	0.39	51	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.25	14	0.52	32	0.36
Morozova 2008		27	0.44	16	0.00	9	0.13	12	0.56	6	0.65	15	0.60
Neighaus 1950		22	0.48	33	0.00	13	0.16	16	0.53	11	0.52	21	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		29	0.43	48	0.00	45	0.08	43	0.15	25	0.39	44	0.24
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.39	65	0.00	43	0.07	45	0.13	43	0.10	65	0.11
Osinska 1989		64	0.30	75	0.00	67	0.07	51	0.07	57	0.05	72	0.06
Pachmann 1927		36	0.42	24	0.00	55	0.07	52	0.07	32	0.46	47	0.18
Paderewski 1930		17	0.48	14	0.01	21	0.14	19	0.46	13	0.64	20	0.54
Perlemuter 1992		12	0.52	60	0.00	20	0.11	17	0.53	5	0.76	11	0.63
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.37	69	0.00	63	0.06	57	0.06	33	0.25	62	0.12
Poblocka 1999		26	0.45	4	0.02	33	0.07	37	0.23	12	0.52	34	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		70	0.24	44	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	44	0.14	69	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.42	30	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	21	0.55	45	0.22
Rangell 2001		74	0.22	86	0.00	71	0.05	68	0.05	68	0.05	76	0.05
Richter 1976		11	0.52	11	0.01	15	0.14	14	0.53	25	0.69	13	0.60
Rosen 1989		54	0.36	38	0.00	47	0.06	58	0.06	39	0.27	59	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.35	12	0.01	50	0.06	59	0.06	16	0.54	48	0.18
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.09	83	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	41	0.26	66	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.09	87	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	45	0.12	74	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.23	63	0.00	65	0.06	65	0.06	30	0.43	52	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.13	91	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	30	0.38	64	0.12
Rossi 2007		85	0.11	72	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	66	0.04	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.28	78	0.00	61	0.06	60	0.06	43	0.12	68	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.48	57	0.00	24	0.08	20	0.45	4	0.68	18	0.55
Rubinstein 1966		52	0.37	52	0.00	54	0.07	50	0.07	45	0.07	70	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.20	76	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	49	0.06	81	0.04
Shebanova 2002		7	0.56	13	0.01	11	0.21	8	0.70	19	0.66	10	0.68
Smith 1975		49	0.38	53	0.00	62	0.07	53	0.07	22	0.46	46	0.18
Sokolov 2002		28	0.44	54	0.00	23	0.08	26	0.37	6	0.67	22	0.50
Sztompka 1959		6	0.60	6	0.02	6	0.21	4	0.77	7	0.77	5	0.77
Tomsic 1995		23	0.47	5	0.02	12	0.14	18	0.50	6	0.58	19	0.54
Uninsky 1932		20	0.48	59	0.00	31	0.09	23	0.41	25	0.42	28	0.41
Uninsky 1971		40	0.41	66	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.33	12	0.47	30	0.39
Wasowski 1980		8	0.55	8	0.01	14	0.17	11	0.59	11	0.66	12	0.62
Zak 1937		67	0.27	55	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.05	80	0.04
Zak 1951		71	0.24	67	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.03
Average		1	0.68	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.90	7	0.65	6	0.76
Random 1		88	0.01	68	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	14	0.37	67	0.09
Random 2		89	0.00	79	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	56	0.05	87	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.07	80	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	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).