Sztompka 1959

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		31	0.43	6	0.03	10	0.16	18	0.53	13	0.57	19	0.55
Anderszewski 2003		82	0.14	81	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.04	83	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		6	0.59	8	0.02	5	0.20	5	0.77	17	0.73	8	0.75
Bacha 2000		80	0.15	82	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.04	79	0.03
Badura 1965		58	0.28	83	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	33	0.31	51	0.14
Barbosa 1983		60	0.27	23	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	39	0.17	58	0.10
Biret 1990		85	0.09	62	0.00	88	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Blet 2003		33	0.42	84	0.00	45	0.06	46	0.13	31	0.41	45	0.23
Block 1995		20	0.46	7	0.02	13	0.17	17	0.56	14	0.59	18	0.57
Blumental 1952		57	0.29	63	0.00	52	0.05	62	0.05	34	0.29	54	0.12
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.32	37	0.00	57	0.06	58	0.06	45	0.13	61	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.11	56	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.04	81	0.03
Bunin 1987		35	0.41	51	0.00	23	0.10	30	0.39	16	0.53	30	0.45
Bunin 1987b		36	0.41	52	0.00	24	0.13	31	0.39	17	0.52	28	0.45
Chiu 1999		18	0.46	72	0.00	28	0.09	23	0.48	28	0.44	26	0.46
Cohen 1997		54	0.32	25	0.00	56	0.05	63	0.05	57	0.06	73	0.05
Cortot 1951		69	0.23	85	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	45	0.11	67	0.07
Csalog 1996		50	0.33	35	0.00	58	0.06	54	0.06	41	0.19	57	0.11
Czerny 1949		87	0.08	73	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	64	0.05	86	0.03
Czerny 1990		3	0.62	2	0.19	2	0.30	3	0.81	3	0.87	1	0.84
Duchoud 2007		44	0.37	28	0.00	46	0.07	50	0.07	38	0.21	53	0.12
Ezaki 2006		70	0.22	48	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	42	0.20	63	0.08
Falvay 1989		67	0.24	64	0.00	74	0.05	69	0.05	60	0.04	75	0.04
Farrell 1958		62	0.27	86	0.00	66	0.06	61	0.06	35	0.27	52	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.01	68	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.05	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		1	0.65	3	0.12	3	0.33	2	0.83	7	0.82	2	0.82
Fou 1978		23	0.45	32	0.00	33	0.09	28	0.41	25	0.42	32	0.41
Francois 1956		75	0.16	74	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.02	89	0.02
Friedman 1923		14	0.48	43	0.00	21	0.20	12	0.60	16	0.67	13	0.63
Friedman 1923b		13	0.48	21	0.00	20	0.13	11	0.61	16	0.70	11	0.65
Friedman 1930		27	0.44	44	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.40	30	0.52	27	0.46
Garcia 2007		53	0.32	60	0.00	37	0.10	38	0.29	27	0.40	38	0.34
Garcia 2007b		46	0.36	69	0.00	50	0.13	45	0.13	22	0.54	42	0.26
Gierzod 1998		77	0.16	87	0.00	62	0.06	60	0.06	51	0.07	68	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		56	0.29	38	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.14	45	0.17	50	0.15
Groot 1988		5	0.60	10	0.01	8	0.31	7	0.77	4	0.77	5	0.77
Harasiewicz 1955		42	0.39	13	0.01	42	0.08	39	0.26	32	0.26	41	0.26
Hatto 1993		29	0.43	30	0.00	22	0.10	21	0.52	19	0.53	24	0.52
Hatto 1997		55	0.30	34	0.00	53	0.06	59	0.06	41	0.14	59	0.09
Horowitz 1949		21	0.46	18	0.00	30	0.09	25	0.46	15	0.64	21	0.54
Indjic 1988		39	0.40	75	0.00	29	0.08	27	0.41	25	0.50	29	0.45
Kapell 1951		48	0.34	65	0.00	51	0.08	48	0.08	57	0.06	64	0.07
Kissin 1993		12	0.51	14	0.01	12	0.18	10	0.66	14	0.73	9	0.69
Kushner 1989		22	0.45	31	0.00	34	0.09	37	0.30	29	0.40	36	0.35
Luisada 1991		30	0.43	54	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.24	31	0.36	39	0.29
Lushtak 2004		71	0.18	49	0.00	78	0.05	64	0.05	77	0.04	78	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.46	45	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.50	16	0.57	22	0.53
Magaloff 1978		28	0.44	27	0.00	26	0.07	33	0.37	26	0.44	34	0.40
Magin 1975		45	0.37	22	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	31	0.45	47	0.18
Michalowski 1933		43	0.39	76	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.15	28	0.40	43	0.24
Milkina 1970		78	0.15	57	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	56	0.05	77	0.04
Mohovich 1999		66	0.26	41	0.00	60	0.06	57	0.06	46	0.09	65	0.07
Moravec 1969		24	0.45	50	0.00	18	0.10	19	0.53	9	0.65	15	0.59
Morozova 2008		16	0.47	4	0.07	11	0.18	20	0.52	13	0.52	23	0.52
Neighaus 1950		40	0.40	39	0.00	25	0.07	34	0.37	39	0.18	40	0.26
Niedzielski 1931		15	0.48	17	0.01	15	0.16	14	0.57	13	0.57	17	0.57
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.40	46	0.00	39	0.08	42	0.22	35	0.18	46	0.20
Osinska 1989		73	0.16	88	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.03
Pachmann 1927		37	0.41	55	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.23	22	0.53	37	0.35
Paderewski 1930		34	0.41	29	0.00	35	0.10	35	0.34	20	0.56	31	0.44
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.51	40	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.56	6	0.74	12	0.64
Pierdomenico 2008		25	0.44	33	0.00	36	0.11	32	0.39	7	0.63	25	0.50
Poblocka 1999		19	0.46	26	0.00	17	0.12	15	0.57	4	0.64	14	0.60
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.26	19	0.00	63	0.07	52	0.07	33	0.33	49	0.15
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.53	9	0.02	7	0.20	9	0.73	3	0.82	4	0.77
Rangell 2001		61	0.27	61	0.00	64	0.05	67	0.05	66	0.05	74	0.05
Richter 1976		7	0.58	11	0.01	9	0.30	8	0.75	16	0.77	6	0.76
Rosen 1989		32	0.42	47	0.00	31	0.08	26	0.41	31	0.42	33	0.41
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.44	16	0.01	14	0.16	24	0.46	10	0.66	20	0.55
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.17	66	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	39	0.30	56	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.16	89	0.00	77	0.05	66	0.05	42	0.15	62	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.34	42	0.00	49	0.10	47	0.10	15	0.56	44	0.24
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.15	77	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	43	0.17	66	0.07
Rossi 2007		81	0.14	20	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	20	0.38	55	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		68	0.23	90	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.36	58	0.00	48	0.08	49	0.08	24	0.42	48	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.33	91	0.00	55	0.05	68	0.05	65	0.05	72	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.16	70	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.04	84	0.03
Shebanova 2002		4	0.60	12	0.01	4	0.23	4	0.80	10	0.76	3	0.78
Smith 1975		65	0.26	59	0.00	73	0.05	70	0.05	62	0.05	70	0.05
Sokolov 2002		59	0.28	78	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	46	0.06	69	0.05
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		38	0.41	24	0.00	38	0.11	36	0.33	11	0.47	35	0.39
Uninsky 1932		8	0.56	5	0.04	6	0.24	6	0.77	4	0.74	7	0.75
Uninsky 1971		63	0.26	36	0.00	61	0.06	56	0.06	62	0.05	71	0.05
Wasowski 1980		10	0.52	15	0.01	16	0.13	13	0.58	16	0.59	16	0.58
Zak 1937		83	0.13	67	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Zak 1951		86	0.09	71	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.03	88	0.02
Average		2	0.64	1	0.37	1	0.36	1	0.85	13	0.53	10	0.67
Random 1		88	0.03	53	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	12	0.37	60	0.09
Random 2		89	0.00	79	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.05	87	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.02	80	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.02	90	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).