Brailowsky 1960

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		39	0.48	20	0.01	61	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.03	79	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		40	0.48	15	0.02	31	0.06	29	0.29	42	0.18	22	0.23
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.44	45	0.00	52	0.04	60	0.04	81	0.03	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		19	0.54	19	0.01	15	0.09	14	0.44	6	0.58	3	0.51
Badura 1965		74	0.34	21	0.01	73	0.05	49	0.05	50	0.05	55	0.05
Barbosa 1983		68	0.36	75	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.05	62	0.04
Biret 1990		44	0.47	60	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.06	56	0.05
Blet 2003		69	0.36	67	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	82	0.03	74	0.03
Block 1995		17	0.55	13	0.02	6	0.10	20	0.39	18	0.36	12	0.37
Blumental 1952		73	0.34	11	0.03	34	0.05	45	0.09	61	0.04	51	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		7	0.57	50	0.00	21	0.11	25	0.33	29	0.31	18	0.32
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		36	0.48	63	0.00	47	0.04	55	0.04	81	0.03	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		35	0.49	71	0.00	46	0.04	57	0.04	70	0.03	70	0.03
Chiu 1999		56	0.43	72	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.24	61	0.04	33	0.10
Cohen 1997		45	0.47	5	0.05	14	0.08	11	0.45	5	0.52	4	0.48
Cortot 1951		71	0.35	51	0.00	79	0.04	61	0.04	74	0.03	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		65	0.39	46	0.00	66	0.05	52	0.05	38	0.22	34	0.10
Czerny 1949		66	0.38	61	0.00	49	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		61	0.40	47	0.00	74	0.06	46	0.06	76	0.03	63	0.04
Duchoud 2007		67	0.37	89	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		5	0.59	4	0.05	19	0.09	10	0.46	43	0.10	23	0.21
Falvay 1989		6	0.58	7	0.04	3	0.11	5	0.53	35	0.18	19	0.31
Farrell 1958		33	0.50	29	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	31	0.26	31	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.44	28	0.00	71	0.06	48	0.06	49	0.07	49	0.06
Fliere 1977		18	0.54	32	0.00	25	0.10	21	0.39	56	0.05	29	0.14
Fou 1978		4	0.60	9	0.03	4	0.11	4	0.54	29	0.37	6	0.45
Francois 1956		55	0.43	64	0.00	48	0.04	56	0.04	77	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		89	-0.02	73	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		88	0.00	65	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		86	0.10	43	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		76	0.33	33	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	31	0.23	40	0.08
Garcia 2007b		83	0.23	52	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	44	0.10	52	0.06
Gierzod 1998		22	0.53	27	0.01	17	0.07	27	0.31	47	0.07	28	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.57	25	0.01	29	0.07	30	0.26	38	0.17	24	0.21
Groot 1988		11	0.56	57	0.00	24	0.09	18	0.39	53	0.04	32	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.49	48	0.00	18	0.07	15	0.43	44	0.10	25	0.21
Hatto 1993		81	0.27	81	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.03	83	0.03
Hatto 1997		77	0.33	88	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.11	58	0.04	47	0.07
Horowitz 1949		23	0.53	3	0.07	10	0.08	8	0.50	20	0.34	9	0.41
Indjic 1988		80	0.27	77	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		60	0.40	41	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.04	60	0.04
Kissin 1993		31	0.50	54	0.00	39	0.05	35	0.17	53	0.05	36	0.09
Kushner 1989		29	0.51	83	0.00	43	0.05	38	0.14	60	0.04	43	0.07
Luisada 1991		9	0.56	26	0.01	28	0.08	28	0.30	33	0.25	21	0.27
Lushtak 2004		49	0.45	62	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.10	64	0.04	50	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.55	55	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.18	75	0.03	44	0.07
Magaloff 1978		3	0.62	1	0.21	1	0.21	2	0.58	18	0.34	7	0.44
Magin 1975		54	0.43	84	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	39	0.15	30	0.12
Michalowski 1933		85	0.20	38	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.04	72	0.03
Milkina 1970		10	0.56	85	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.38	24	0.34	14	0.36
Mohovich 1999		2	0.63	8	0.04	9	0.09	3	0.55	27	0.29	10	0.40
Moravec 1969		48	0.46	36	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.15	68	0.04	37	0.08
Morozova 2008		20	0.54	12	0.02	22	0.14	6	0.52	49	0.06	27	0.18
Neighaus 1950		32	0.50	58	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.17	77	0.03	48	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.35	39	0.00	65	0.03	77	0.03	56	0.05	59	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.52	30	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.16	68	0.04	39	0.08
Osinska 1989		42	0.48	59	0.00	58	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04	57	0.04
Pachmann 1927		38	0.48	68	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.32	24	0.36	15	0.34
Paderewski 1930		72	0.34	78	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.44	40	0.00	57	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.04	66	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.40	90	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	53	0.05	53	0.05
Poblocka 1999		26	0.52	31	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	54	0.05	42	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		75	0.34	91	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03	69	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		64	0.39	66	0.00	60	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.03	68	0.03
Rangell 2001		15	0.55	14	0.02	5	0.09	16	0.43	21	0.32	13	0.37
Richter 1976		46	0.46	76	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	43	0.13	38	0.08
Rosen 1989		12	0.56	37	0.00	20	0.08	19	0.39	30	0.30	16	0.34
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.42	53	0.00	50	0.04	63	0.04	39	0.18	41	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		37	0.48	56	0.00	16	0.08	17	0.41	9	0.54	5	0.47
Rosenthal 1931b		28	0.51	24	0.01	8	0.12	9	0.50	7	0.60	1	0.55
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.41	34	0.00	56	0.04	58	0.04	53	0.05	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		13	0.56	16	0.02	7	0.09	7	0.51	7	0.55	2	0.53
Rossi 2007		84	0.22	82	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	42	0.09	58	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		47	0.46	6	0.04	11	0.08	24	0.34	5	0.52	8	0.42
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.56	18	0.01	27	0.11	23	0.37	22	0.39	11	0.38
Rubinstein 1966		41	0.48	10	0.03	35	0.05	41	0.11	69	0.04	46	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		63	0.40	44	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03
Shebanova 2002		43	0.47	79	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.06	54	0.05
Smith 1975		21	0.53	86	0.00	30	0.06	32	0.21	74	0.04	35	0.09
Sokolov 2002		50	0.44	49	0.00	70	0.05	51	0.05	86	0.02	67	0.03
Sztompka 1959		82	0.24	80	0.00	86	0.04	72	0.04	83	0.03	71	0.03
Tomsic 1995		24	0.52	23	0.01	40	0.05	39	0.12	62	0.04	45	0.07
Uninsky 1932		79	0.27	42	0.00	85	0.04	76	0.04	84	0.02	76	0.03
Uninsky 1971		58	0.42	22	0.01	72	0.05	54	0.05	80	0.03	61	0.04
Wasowski 1980		78	0.33	70	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	83	0.03	65	0.03
Zak 1937		27	0.51	35	0.00	13	0.09	13	0.44	33	0.24	17	0.32
Zak 1951		30	0.51	17	0.01	12	0.08	12	0.44	39	0.21	20	0.30
Average		1	0.67	2	0.17	2	0.20	1	0.65	46	0.06	26	0.20
Random 1		91	-0.08	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.04	74	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	47	0.06	78	0.03
Random 3		87	0.00	69	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	58	0.03	89	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).