Average

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		20	0.75	62	0.00	36	0.07	31	0.27	2	0.71	31	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		65	0.63	13	0.01	29	0.05	37	0.20	1	0.64	43	0.36
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.78	3	0.11	3	0.20	1	0.71	1	0.84	2	0.77
Bacha 2000		69	0.59	86	0.00	80	0.05	55	0.05	3	0.61	59	0.17
Badura 1965		70	0.58	65	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	1	0.68	70	0.16
Barbosa 1983		64	0.63	79	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.18	1	0.73	42	0.36
Biret 1990		36	0.71	73	0.00	51	0.06	47	0.06	2	0.74	48	0.21
Blet 2003		28	0.72	16	0.01	39	0.04	32	0.25	1	0.75	32	0.43
Block 1995		54	0.65	29	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	3	0.69	62	0.17
Blumental 1952		77	0.52	25	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	1	0.62	57	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.70	22	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	1	0.79	58	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		51	0.67	77	0.00	73	0.06	46	0.06	1	0.65	50	0.20
Bunin 1987		19	0.75	27	0.00	34	0.07	27	0.29	2	0.70	29	0.45
Bunin 1987b		18	0.75	12	0.01	33	0.06	26	0.30	2	0.70	28	0.46
Chiu 1999		59	0.64	55	0.00	43	0.07	38	0.19	1	0.79	37	0.39
Cohen 1997		82	0.45	48	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	8	0.50	83	0.12
Cortot 1951		61	0.63	41	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	2	0.64	72	0.16
Csalog 1996		73	0.55	49	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	19	0.45	82	0.12
Czerny 1949		46	0.68	87	0.00	42	0.07	45	0.16	2	0.76	45	0.35
Czerny 1990		12	0.78	50	0.00	15	0.08	14	0.40	1	0.76	16	0.55
Duchoud 2007		23	0.73	66	0.00	31	0.05	21	0.33	1	0.77	20	0.50
Ezaki 2006		5	0.80	6	0.06	8	0.17	10	0.51	1	0.76	10	0.62
Falvay 1989		21	0.74	20	0.01	18	0.09	17	0.36	1	0.75	18	0.52
Farrell 1958		53	0.65	60	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	2	0.70	76	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.59	72	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	11	0.48	77	0.14
Fliere 1977		2	0.83	21	0.01	6	0.13	5	0.59	1	0.87	4	0.72
Fou 1978		37	0.71	15	0.01	19	0.10	20	0.33	2	0.63	26	0.46
Francois 1956		24	0.73	31	0.00	14	0.09	19	0.34	2	0.73	21	0.50
Friedman 1923		86	0.32	75	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	8	0.49	85	0.12
Friedman 1923b		85	0.33	24	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	6	0.53	81	0.13
Friedman 1930		81	0.48	45	0.00	62	0.05	53	0.05	3	0.65	55	0.18
Garcia 2007		84	0.40	70	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	8	0.63	78	0.14
Garcia 2007b		87	0.32	84	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	8	0.51	87	0.10
Gierzod 1998		34	0.71	37	0.00	26	0.05	35	0.23	1	0.74	34	0.41
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.78	8	0.03	17	0.07	15	0.40	1	0.77	15	0.55
Groot 1988		4	0.80	10	0.01	11	0.12	12	0.44	1	0.79	12	0.59
Harasiewicz 1955		48	0.68	2	0.15	2	0.19	4	0.59	1	0.76	5	0.67
Hatto 1993		75	0.54	38	0.00	45	0.09	43	0.18	4	0.75	41	0.37
Hatto 1997		68	0.59	30	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.31	3	0.76	23	0.49
Horowitz 1949		44	0.69	35	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	2	0.72	52	0.19
Indjic 1988		74	0.55	64	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.19	4	0.75	39	0.38
Kapell 1951		15	0.76	78	0.00	28	0.05	28	0.29	1	0.73	27	0.46
Kissin 1993		25	0.73	61	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.23	3	0.69	35	0.40
Kushner 1989		8	0.78	39	0.00	21	0.06	29	0.28	2	0.80	24	0.47
Luisada 1991		33	0.71	28	0.00	30	0.05	41	0.19	1	0.74	40	0.37
Lushtak 2004		31	0.72	18	0.01	10	0.12	9	0.51	1	0.81	9	0.64
Malcuzynski 1961		1	0.85	4	0.09	4	0.20	3	0.66	1	0.81	3	0.73
Magaloff 1978		6	0.80	5	0.08	5	0.14	7	0.53	1	0.77	8	0.64
Magin 1975		56	0.64	63	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	5	0.57	74	0.15
Michalowski 1933		80	0.51	59	0.00	60	0.04	60	0.04	1	0.67	67	0.16
Milkina 1970		40	0.70	68	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	2	0.64	65	0.16
Mohovich 1999		14	0.77	74	0.00	23	0.05	16	0.38	1	0.79	14	0.55
Moravec 1969		42	0.69	44	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	1	0.69	51	0.19
Morozova 2008		26	0.72	14	0.01	13	0.11	8	0.53	1	0.81	7	0.66
Neighaus 1950		3	0.81	1	0.22	1	0.22	2	0.71	1	0.89	1	0.79
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.56	36	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	3	0.58	73	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.79	9	0.02	12	0.11	11	0.47	1	0.81	11	0.62
Osinska 1989		27	0.72	52	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	1	0.80	49	0.20
Pachmann 1927		71	0.56	80	0.00	74	0.05	50	0.05	4	0.65	54	0.18
Paderewski 1930		47	0.68	46	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	1	0.66	66	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.69	34	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.27	1	0.72	30	0.44
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.62	54	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	2	0.66	75	0.14
Poblocka 1999		17	0.76	7	0.05	9	0.14	13	0.42	1	0.72	13	0.55
Rabcewiczowa 1932		62	0.63	76	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	2	0.73	60	0.17
Rachmaninoff 1923		58	0.64	69	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.25	2	0.70	33	0.42
Rangell 2001		43	0.69	26	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	1	0.67	71	0.16
Richter 1976		50	0.67	51	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	2	0.57	61	0.17
Rosen 1989		22	0.74	19	0.01	16	0.07	18	0.35	1	0.80	17	0.53
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.64	81	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	5	0.69	53	0.19
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.51	88	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	5	0.65	68	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.51	85	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	5	0.65	80	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.65	53	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	5	0.73	63	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.54	82	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	5	0.63	79	0.14
Rossi 2007		88	0.32	89	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	22	0.29	88	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.41	33	0.00	88	0.04	72	0.04	27	0.31	86	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.63	71	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	16	0.46	84	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.68	40	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	4	0.67	69	0.16
Schilhawsky 1960		49	0.68	11	0.01	38	0.05	44	0.17	1	0.73	44	0.35
Shebanova 2002		30	0.72	17	0.01	46	0.06	49	0.06	2	0.74	47	0.21
Smith 1975		11	0.78	47	0.00	7	0.18	6	0.55	1	0.80	6	0.66
Sokolov 2002		9	0.78	57	0.00	20	0.06	22	0.32	1	0.76	22	0.49
Sztompka 1959		32	0.71	23	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	1	0.71	46	0.21
Tomsic 1995		16	0.76	43	0.00	24	0.06	24	0.31	1	0.72	25	0.47
Uninsky 1932		52	0.66	42	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	2	0.65	56	0.18
Uninsky 1971		29	0.72	32	0.00	22	0.05	36	0.22	2	0.72	36	0.40
Wasowski 1980		60	0.64	67	0.00	58	0.04	61	0.04	1	0.68	64	0.16
Zak 1937		38	0.70	56	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.19	2	0.80	38	0.39
Zak 1951		35	0.71	58	0.00	25	0.06	23	0.31	2	0.81	19	0.50
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		91	-0.04	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.03	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	69	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	0.02	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	91	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).