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		63	0.29	69	0.00	64	0.12	46	0.12	46	0.07	62	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.21	71	0.00	65	0.06	69	0.06	51	0.07	66	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		1	0.72	2	0.20	2	0.40	2	0.89	1	0.92	2	0.90
Bacha 2000		47	0.39	59	0.00	48	0.08	59	0.08	8	0.59	45	0.22
Badura 1965		57	0.33	72	0.00	58	0.06	66	0.06	23	0.47	52	0.17
Barbosa 1983		43	0.41	83	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.35	8	0.66	41	0.48
Biret 1990		80	0.13	62	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	82	0.03
Blet 2003		32	0.48	60	0.00	31	0.13	32	0.50	9	0.65	29	0.57
Block 1995		21	0.54	73	0.00	24	0.11	21	0.65	9	0.69	24	0.67
Blumental 1952		50	0.39	78	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.25	17	0.56	42	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		30	0.50	74	0.00	32	0.10	31	0.53	15	0.55	33	0.54
Brailowsky 1960		81	0.13	86	0.00	76	0.05	72	0.05	64	0.05	69	0.05
Bunin 1987		42	0.42	75	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.39	4	0.67	39	0.51
Bunin 1987b		41	0.43	57	0.00	42	0.16	40	0.39	4	0.67	37	0.51
Chiu 1999		9	0.60	19	0.00	9	0.19	7	0.81	2	0.80	8	0.80
Cohen 1997		67	0.24	84	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	72	0.03	80	0.03
Cortot 1951		68	0.22	85	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	53	0.05	78	0.04
Csalog 1996		48	0.39	70	0.00	49	0.08	51	0.08	15	0.53	47	0.21
Czerny 1949		89	-0.03	63	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Czerny 1990		13	0.58	20	0.00	11	0.17	11	0.76	1	0.89	6	0.82
Duchoud 2007		37	0.46	35	0.00	34	0.08	36	0.44	9	0.60	38	0.51
Ezaki 2006		71	0.21	46	0.00	72	0.04	76	0.04	61	0.05	72	0.04
Falvay 1989		59	0.33	52	0.00	47	0.08	60	0.08	42	0.13	61	0.10
Farrell 1958		74	0.18	87	0.00	74	0.05	71	0.05	70	0.04	75	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		91	-0.04	88	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.03	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		6	0.65	9	0.02	5	0.30	4	0.86	3	0.85	4	0.85
Fou 1978		29	0.50	76	0.00	28	0.11	27	0.57	7	0.63	28	0.60
Francois 1956		83	0.09	55	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	89	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		11	0.58	11	0.02	15	0.17	14	0.68	10	0.76	15	0.72
Friedman 1923b		14	0.58	6	0.03	14	0.11	15	0.68	10	0.76	14	0.72
Friedman 1930		12	0.58	5	0.03	16	0.23	17	0.66	11	0.71	21	0.68
Garcia 2007		39	0.43	34	0.00	37	0.09	33	0.47	8	0.65	32	0.55
Garcia 2007b		36	0.47	39	0.00	30	0.12	28	0.56	5	0.76	25	0.65
Gierzod 1998		66	0.26	89	0.00	63	0.08	53	0.08	36	0.26	56	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		76	0.17	41	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Groot 1988		17	0.56	22	0.00	21	0.11	19	0.66	8	0.70	22	0.68
Harasiewicz 1955		44	0.41	56	0.00	56	0.09	49	0.09	61	0.05	65	0.07
Hatto 1993		10	0.59	15	0.00	7	0.16	8	0.77	5	0.80	11	0.78
Hatto 1997		58	0.33	47	0.00	54	0.07	61	0.07	39	0.17	60	0.11
Horowitz 1949		33	0.48	37	0.00	36	0.09	38	0.39	17	0.62	40	0.49
Indjic 1988		16	0.57	8	0.02	10	0.14	13	0.73	7	0.76	12	0.74
Kapell 1951		24	0.53	27	0.00	25	0.11	23	0.62	7	0.63	27	0.62
Kissin 1993		3	0.71	1	0.40	1	0.39	3	0.89	1	0.92	1	0.90
Kushner 1989		5	0.66	7	0.02	6	0.28	6	0.82	1	0.86	5	0.84
Luisada 1991		22	0.53	10	0.02	12	0.20	22	0.63	9	0.72	23	0.67
Lushtak 2004		52	0.38	24	0.00	55	0.07	64	0.07	13	0.46	50	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.53	42	0.00	23	0.08	26	0.60	5	0.69	26	0.64
Magaloff 1978		35	0.47	43	0.00	38	0.09	35	0.44	14	0.60	36	0.51
Magin 1975		25	0.52	21	0.00	26	0.13	24	0.61	8	0.80	18	0.70
Michalowski 1933		34	0.47	17	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.46	11	0.58	34	0.52
Milkina 1970		79	0.13	79	0.00	69	0.06	65	0.06	68	0.04	71	0.05
Mohovich 1999		64	0.28	48	0.00	66	0.07	62	0.07	59	0.06	67	0.06
Moravec 1969		51	0.38	61	0.00	53	0.08	57	0.08	22	0.38	51	0.17
Morozova 2008		26	0.52	44	0.00	20	0.13	20	0.65	2	0.71	20	0.68
Neighaus 1950		38	0.44	32	0.00	46	0.11	47	0.11	38	0.18	57	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		18	0.55	14	0.01	19	0.18	16	0.67	4	0.73	17	0.70
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.51	28	0.00	27	0.11	30	0.54	15	0.58	31	0.56
Osinska 1989		69	0.21	64	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.04
Pachmann 1927		15	0.57	29	0.00	17	0.18	12	0.74	7	0.83	9	0.78
Paderewski 1930		19	0.55	36	0.00	22	0.14	18	0.66	4	0.77	16	0.71
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.49	12	0.01	33	0.08	37	0.41	14	0.64	35	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.51	50	0.00	29	0.13	25	0.60	1	0.76	19	0.68
Poblocka 1999		46	0.40	31	0.00	39	0.10	43	0.24	18	0.43	43	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.11	51	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.35	33	0.00	61	0.08	55	0.08	38	0.19	58	0.12
Rangell 2001		54	0.37	90	0.00	57	0.08	52	0.08	27	0.31	54	0.16
Richter 1976		4	0.68	4	0.07	4	0.31	5	0.85	1	0.89	3	0.87
Rosen 1989		40	0.43	45	0.00	45	0.09	44	0.18	28	0.44	44	0.28
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.18	80	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.08	30	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	62	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.07	66	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.17	81	0.00	75	0.06	68	0.06	76	0.02	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.03	82	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		77	0.14	67	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.05	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		72	0.20	77	0.00	68	0.08	56	0.08	55	0.07	63	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		60	0.32	53	0.00	59	0.06	70	0.06	49	0.06	68	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.39	40	0.00	44	0.09	45	0.18	28	0.26	46	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.29	26	0.00	50	0.09	50	0.09	19	0.46	48	0.20
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		78	0.14	91	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Sokolov 2002		65	0.27	25	0.00	67	0.06	67	0.06	59	0.04	70	0.05
Sztompka 1959		8	0.60	13	0.01	13	0.15	10	0.76	4	0.80	10	0.78
Tomsic 1995		45	0.40	68	0.00	52	0.08	54	0.08	19	0.33	53	0.16
Uninsky 1932		7	0.61	18	0.00	8	0.15	9	0.76	9	0.72	13	0.74
Uninsky 1971		61	0.31	54	0.00	62	0.10	48	0.10	58	0.05	64	0.07
Wasowski 1980		20	0.54	16	0.00	18	0.13	29	0.55	17	0.58	30	0.56
Zak 1937		53	0.37	23	0.00	51	0.08	58	0.08	24	0.45	49	0.19
Zak 1951		56	0.34	58	0.00	60	0.07	63	0.07	36	0.27	55	0.14
Average		2	0.72	3	0.08	3	0.43	1	0.90	4	0.73	7	0.81
Random 1		86	0.07	49	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	9	0.45	59	0.12
Random 2		90	-0.04	65	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		88	0.01	38	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	57	0.03	88	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).