Badura 1965

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

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).