Lushtak 2004

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

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).