Tomsic 1995

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		18	0.35	41	0.00	11	0.14	10	0.48	16	0.52	9	0.50
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.22	2	0.17	3	0.19	21	0.31	24	0.45	16	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		11	0.40	40	0.00	18	0.09	17	0.36	44	0.15	29	0.23
Bacha 2000		33	0.31	18	0.01	49	0.05	61	0.05	29	0.30	53	0.12
Badura 1965		48	0.26	16	0.01	36	0.07	36	0.16	29	0.41	24	0.26
Barbosa 1983		70	0.21	25	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	68	0.05	66	0.05
Biret 1990		52	0.25	28	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	35	0.40	42	0.15
Blet 2003		20	0.34	89	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.44	32	0.40	12	0.42
Block 1995		26	0.33	65	0.00	24	0.07	18	0.34	38	0.24	20	0.29
Blumental 1952		44	0.28	54	0.00	58	0.06	48	0.06	51	0.06	63	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		27	0.33	37	0.00	19	0.06	28	0.26	51	0.07	50	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		76	0.18	35	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.08	60	0.06
Bunin 1987		46	0.27	47	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.22	34	0.30	25	0.26
Bunin 1987b		45	0.27	46	0.00	32	0.05	31	0.21	34	0.28	27	0.24
Chiu 1999		74	0.19	90	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.04	84	0.03
Cohen 1997		12	0.39	8	0.01	12	0.16	13	0.45	20	0.52	10	0.48
Cortot 1951		82	0.16	80	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.08	70	0.05
Csalog 1996		81	0.17	72	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.05	80	0.04
Czerny 1949		57	0.24	57	0.00	57	0.05	50	0.05	31	0.53	40	0.16
Czerny 1990		36	0.31	32	0.00	46	0.04	64	0.04	39	0.27	54	0.10
Duchoud 2007		49	0.26	84	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.13	40	0.19	41	0.16
Ezaki 2006		8	0.42	12	0.01	5	0.22	2	0.65	11	0.67	1	0.66
Falvay 1989		4	0.44	9	0.01	4	0.15	3	0.64	4	0.58	2	0.61
Farrell 1958		86	0.13	13	0.01	41	0.04	44	0.10	39	0.19	44	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.14	45	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	39	0.44	48	0.13
Fliere 1977		37	0.30	66	0.00	54	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.04
Fou 1978		38	0.30	67	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	69	0.03	75	0.04
Francois 1956		19	0.34	33	0.00	15	0.10	12	0.47	17	0.65	5	0.55
Friedman 1923		83	0.15	81	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		85	0.14	85	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1930		42	0.28	14	0.01	61	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.06	67	0.05
Garcia 2007		58	0.24	61	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	63	0.05	68	0.05
Garcia 2007b		31	0.32	26	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.20	28	0.43	21	0.29
Gierzod 1998		67	0.22	43	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.21	32	0.36	22	0.27
Gornostaeva 1994		50	0.25	68	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	43	0.18	57	0.09
Groot 1988		2	0.47	3	0.17	2	0.29	6	0.58	18	0.50	6	0.54
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.35	17	0.01	25	0.07	22	0.31	40	0.16	30	0.22
Hatto 1993		6	0.43	7	0.01	7	0.14	7	0.56	21	0.52	7	0.54
Hatto 1997		7	0.43	15	0.01	10	0.20	5	0.59	10	0.53	4	0.56
Horowitz 1949		66	0.22	62	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.05	77	0.04
Indjic 1988		3	0.46	5	0.04	6	0.22	4	0.60	20	0.57	3	0.58
Kapell 1951		51	0.25	86	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	47	0.08	62	0.06
Kissin 1993		34	0.31	29	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.13	40	0.30	31	0.20
Kushner 1989		14	0.38	70	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.29	39	0.21	26	0.25
Luisada 1991		13	0.39	6	0.01	9	0.16	8	0.55	24	0.51	8	0.53
Lushtak 2004		69	0.21	59	0.00	35	0.05	37	0.15	29	0.21	35	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.38	22	0.00	20	0.08	16	0.40	27	0.31	17	0.35
Magaloff 1978		65	0.22	51	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.04	85	0.03
Magin 1975		35	0.31	44	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	37	0.31	34	0.18
Michalowski 1933		63	0.23	36	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.05	79	0.04
Milkina 1970		62	0.23	69	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	32	0.34	47	0.13
Mohovich 1999		47	0.27	60	0.00	37	0.09	35	0.18	42	0.18	36	0.18
Moravec 1969		25	0.33	24	0.00	44	0.04	42	0.10	37	0.19	43	0.14
Morozova 2008		30	0.32	10	0.01	22	0.07	24	0.30	42	0.13	33	0.20
Neighaus 1950		5	0.44	21	0.00	8	0.16	9	0.55	20	0.41	11	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.21	73	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.05	74	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.25	52	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	82	0.03	78	0.04
Osinska 1989		72	0.20	87	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.05	83	0.03
Pachmann 1927		59	0.23	88	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	55	0.07	65	0.05
Paderewski 1930		28	0.32	55	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.24	31	0.41	18	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.28	11	0.01	53	0.04	69	0.04	45	0.10	59	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.25	31	0.00	73	0.02	85	0.02	78	0.03	88	0.02
Poblocka 1999		40	0.29	78	0.00	52	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.05	72	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.23	27	0.00	63	0.06	46	0.06	36	0.28	46	0.13
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.17	42	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	62	0.04	73	0.04
Rangell 2001		56	0.24	63	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.05	69	0.05
Richter 1976		21	0.34	20	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	47	0.10	55	0.09
Rosen 1989		55	0.25	82	0.00	68	0.05	63	0.05	62	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.17	79	0.00	82	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.05	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.17	34	0.00	67	0.05	51	0.05	34	0.42	45	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.20	71	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	33	0.42	52	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		43	0.28	23	0.00	39	0.04	41	0.12	22	0.49	28	0.24
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.19	76	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	34	0.36	51	0.13
Rossi 2007		90	0.04	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.04	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.23	64	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	46	0.09	61	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		23	0.33	4	0.04	13	0.12	15	0.40	28	0.40	14	0.40
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.29	58	0.00	30	0.06	20	0.32	43	0.09	37	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		87	0.06	74	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	79	0.03	89	0.02
Shebanova 2002		10	0.40	39	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.33	54	0.08	39	0.16
Smith 1975		17	0.35	30	0.00	23	0.06	26	0.29	14	0.59	13	0.41
Sokolov 2002		24	0.33	48	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.19	17	0.45	19	0.29
Sztompka 1959		9	0.41	38	0.00	14	0.10	11	0.47	36	0.33	15	0.39
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		32	0.31	53	0.00	31	0.06	38	0.14	59	0.05	58	0.08
Uninsky 1971		29	0.32	75	0.00	27	0.07	27	0.28	43	0.15	32	0.20
Wasowski 1980		22	0.33	19	0.00	17	0.09	23	0.31	43	0.22	23	0.26
Zak 1937		77	0.17	77	0.00	83	0.04	71	0.04	58	0.06	64	0.05
Zak 1951		75	0.19	91	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	55	0.05	76	0.04
Average		1	0.51	1	0.39	1	0.39	1	0.76	65	0.04	38	0.17
Random 1		88	0.05	49	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	4	0.54	49	0.13
Random 2		89	0.05	50	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	20	0.40	56	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.04	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	56	0.03	90	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).