Perlemuter 1992

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		56	0.28	60	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	62	0.04	78	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		77	0.16	69	0.00	75	0.06	47	0.06	71	0.04	66	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.44	28	0.00	15	0.12	12	0.66	35	0.39	22	0.51
Bacha 2000		80	0.13	62	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.04
Badura 1965		52	0.29	70	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	36	0.27	45	0.13
Barbosa 1983		44	0.31	41	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.05
Biret 1990		84	0.08	73	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Blet 2003		30	0.40	53	0.00	37	0.09	35	0.44	38	0.36	32	0.40
Block 1995		3	0.60	2	0.22	2	0.42	3	0.80	6	0.73	3	0.76
Blumental 1952		53	0.29	29	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	53	0.06	67	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		8	0.49	58	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.72	20	0.52	12	0.61
Brailowsky 1960		69	0.23	35	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.08	57	0.06
Bunin 1987		63	0.25	74	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	55	0.06	69	0.05
Bunin 1987b		62	0.26	51	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	54	0.06	63	0.05
Chiu 1999		47	0.31	77	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	47	0.10	53	0.07
Cohen 1997		46	0.31	82	0.00	57	0.04	75	0.04	49	0.07	68	0.05
Cortot 1951		74	0.19	66	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	41	0.16	55	0.07
Csalog 1996		45	0.31	50	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	39	0.20	43	0.16
Czerny 1949		90	-0.01	78	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Czerny 1990		39	0.34	61	0.00	31	0.09	33	0.47	29	0.51	26	0.49
Duchoud 2007		72	0.20	79	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.05	79	0.04
Ezaki 2006		58	0.27	24	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	35	0.27	50	0.10
Falvay 1989		79	0.14	83	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.02	86	0.02
Farrell 1958		86	0.04	63	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	73	0.03	87	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		89	0.00	84	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	64	0.04	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		1	0.66	1	0.38	1	0.37	1	0.88	6	0.83	1	0.85
Fou 1978		40	0.34	13	0.01	35	0.10	36	0.42	39	0.23	38	0.31
Francois 1956		43	0.32	85	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	37	0.31	49	0.11
Friedman 1923		12	0.48	12	0.01	20	0.08	10	0.68	19	0.60	8	0.64
Friedman 1923b		15	0.47	16	0.00	21	0.14	11	0.68	21	0.60	7	0.64
Friedman 1930		25	0.42	38	0.00	33	0.10	28	0.52	39	0.39	28	0.45
Garcia 2007		55	0.28	47	0.00	39	0.10	40	0.31	45	0.16	40	0.22
Garcia 2007b		59	0.26	75	0.00	74	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.06	72	0.05
Gierzod 1998		66	0.25	67	0.00	43	0.12	41	0.27	29	0.40	36	0.33
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.40	34	0.00	26	0.10	30	0.50	11	0.66	15	0.57
Groot 1988		5	0.52	30	0.00	8	0.12	5	0.76	17	0.53	9	0.63
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.48	54	0.00	16	0.11	13	0.66	22	0.42	19	0.53
Hatto 1993		57	0.27	59	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	58	0.07	71	0.05
Hatto 1997		78	0.14	86	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03
Horowitz 1949		37	0.35	43	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	51	0.07	59	0.06
Indjic 1988		64	0.25	64	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	58	0.06	64	0.05
Kapell 1951		76	0.18	71	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	66	0.05	76	0.04
Kissin 1993		27	0.41	17	0.00	18	0.10	24	0.57	23	0.55	16	0.56
Kushner 1989		21	0.43	19	0.00	29	0.11	25	0.56	26	0.43	25	0.49
Luisada 1991		33	0.40	14	0.00	40	0.09	38	0.34	48	0.09	42	0.17
Lushtak 2004		60	0.26	80	0.00	61	0.04	77	0.04	53	0.05	80	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.49	10	0.01	11	0.16	15	0.64	14	0.58	10	0.61
Magaloff 1978		4	0.60	4	0.09	4	0.42	4	0.79	5	0.73	2	0.76
Magin 1975		22	0.43	26	0.00	32	0.10	29	0.51	24	0.54	20	0.52
Michalowski 1933		23	0.42	20	0.00	34	0.11	31	0.49	26	0.41	27	0.45
Milkina 1970		88	0.01	87	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Mohovich 1999		26	0.42	37	0.00	23	0.11	16	0.63	15	0.55	13	0.59
Moravec 1969		67	0.25	52	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Morozova 2008		36	0.38	6	0.03	14	0.13	22	0.58	27	0.33	30	0.44
Neighaus 1950		32	0.40	7	0.02	25	0.10	26	0.55	47	0.09	41	0.22
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.41	44	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.45	39	0.21	37	0.31
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.46	8	0.01	19	0.08	21	0.60	28	0.32	29	0.44
Osinska 1989		35	0.38	45	0.00	38	0.09	37	0.38	29	0.45	31	0.41
Pachmann 1927		17	0.46	48	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.54	23	0.53	18	0.53
Paderewski 1930		11	0.49	23	0.00	5	0.16	20	0.61	16	0.62	11	0.61
Perlemuter 1992		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.30	46	0.00	56	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.05	75	0.04
Poblocka 1999		7	0.49	15	0.00	7	0.12	7	0.73	3	0.70	4	0.71
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.26	56	0.00	73	0.05	50	0.05	39	0.21	51	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.35	5	0.04	17	0.10	32	0.48	23	0.50	24	0.49
Rangell 2001		70	0.23	88	0.00	72	0.04	60	0.04	55	0.05	81	0.04
Richter 1976		14	0.48	32	0.00	12	0.11	17	0.62	33	0.55	14	0.58
Rosen 1989		18	0.46	11	0.01	6	0.13	9	0.70	17	0.58	6	0.64
Rosenthal 1930		49	0.30	27	0.00	41	0.10	43	0.20	29	0.41	39	0.29
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.10	65	0.00	76	0.04	78	0.04	49	0.08	60	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.11	57	0.00	78	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.10	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.20	89	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	39	0.25	52	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.11	68	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	48	0.07	70	0.05
Rossi 2007		71	0.22	36	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	9	0.55	44	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.18	49	0.00	81	0.04	67	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.44	55	0.00	28	0.10	19	0.61	18	0.51	17	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		41	0.33	42	0.00	42	0.09	42	0.26	50	0.06	47	0.12
Schilhawsky 1960		42	0.33	76	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	29	0.35	48	0.12
Shebanova 2002		10	0.49	9	0.01	9	0.10	14	0.64	37	0.41	21	0.51
Smith 1975		51	0.29	81	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	48	0.06	61	0.05
Sokolov 2002		34	0.39	25	0.00	30	0.11	39	0.33	25	0.40	35	0.36
Sztompka 1959		6	0.51	39	0.00	13	0.13	6	0.74	16	0.56	5	0.64
Tomsic 1995		54	0.28	31	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	69	0.04	58	0.06
Uninsky 1932		24	0.42	21	0.00	22	0.11	18	0.61	37	0.26	34	0.40
Uninsky 1971		31	0.40	22	0.00	24	0.11	23	0.57	14	0.43	23	0.50
Wasowski 1980		48	0.30	90	0.00	68	0.04	79	0.04	79	0.04	74	0.04
Zak 1937		68	0.24	72	0.00	71	0.05	52	0.05	65	0.05	62	0.05
Zak 1951		65	0.25	33	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.05	77	0.04
Average		2	0.60	3	0.11	3	0.38	2	0.87	36	0.18	33	0.40
Random 1		87	0.01	40	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	28	0.27	54	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		85	0.07	18	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	8	0.55	46	0.13

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).