Falvay 1989

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		9	0.64	4	0.04	12	0.19	12	0.41	21	0.37	13	0.39
Anderszewski 2003		78	0.36	76	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.11	60	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.54	25	0.00	19	0.05	22	0.29	32	0.25	29	0.27
Bacha 2000		27	0.56	37	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	9	0.56	38	0.17
Badura 1965		67	0.42	12	0.01	64	0.04	69	0.04	52	0.05	79	0.04
Barbosa 1983		57	0.47	58	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	41	0.22	52	0.10
Biret 1990		44	0.52	14	0.01	30	0.06	29	0.21	28	0.36	30	0.27
Blet 2003		49	0.48	66	0.00	78	0.05	58	0.05	55	0.05	67	0.05
Block 1995		50	0.48	85	0.00	68	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.04	87	0.03
Blumental 1952		80	0.35	74	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		53	0.48	71	0.00	71	0.04	61	0.04	48	0.05	80	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		23	0.58	32	0.00	35	0.05	35	0.18	5	0.53	20	0.31
Bunin 1987		51	0.48	29	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.04
Bunin 1987b		52	0.48	53	0.00	63	0.05	52	0.05	59	0.04	74	0.04
Chiu 1999		38	0.53	47	0.00	32	0.05	31	0.20	22	0.43	24	0.29
Cohen 1997		62	0.44	43	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	10	0.49	43	0.16
Cortot 1951		71	0.40	38	0.00	82	0.05	56	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.05
Csalog 1996		36	0.53	17	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	9	0.53	42	0.16
Czerny 1949		30	0.55	31	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.14	24	0.40	33	0.24
Czerny 1990		21	0.58	77	0.00	34	0.08	34	0.19	60	0.05	56	0.10
Duchoud 2007		58	0.47	21	0.00	57	0.04	65	0.04	48	0.06	69	0.05
Ezaki 2006		14	0.61	30	0.00	24	0.07	16	0.35	31	0.27	18	0.31
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		43	0.52	51	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	7	0.49	39	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		55	0.48	26	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	30	0.23	54	0.10
Fliere 1977		31	0.55	86	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.14	44	0.10	48	0.12
Fou 1978		4	0.71	7	0.03	3	0.20	3	0.70	5	0.58	3	0.64
Francois 1956		10	0.64	11	0.01	7	0.20	6	0.55	4	0.63	6	0.59
Friedman 1923		90	-0.04	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		89	-0.03	67	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		86	0.14	88	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.04	85	0.03
Garcia 2007		83	0.20	42	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.04	86	0.03
Garcia 2007b		85	0.17	44	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	32	0.25	58	0.10
Gierzod 1998		46	0.51	52	0.00	20	0.06	33	0.20	19	0.32	31	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.58	68	0.00	21	0.05	27	0.23	29	0.26	34	0.24
Groot 1988		3	0.71	8	0.02	5	0.18	5	0.64	2	0.63	4	0.63
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.52	27	0.00	23	0.05	20	0.32	35	0.20	32	0.25
Hatto 1993		81	0.33	54	0.00	58	0.05	49	0.05	49	0.05	70	0.05
Hatto 1997		69	0.41	9	0.01	29	0.05	37	0.14	39	0.12	45	0.13
Horowitz 1949		34	0.54	55	0.00	13	0.10	25	0.25	16	0.37	23	0.30
Indjic 1988		79	0.36	33	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.04	77	0.04
Kapell 1951		45	0.51	34	0.00	56	0.05	50	0.05	66	0.04	73	0.04
Kissin 1993		6	0.69	6	0.03	6	0.21	7	0.55	9	0.56	7	0.55
Kushner 1989		15	0.60	35	0.00	36	0.06	30	0.21	20	0.36	27	0.27
Luisada 1991		37	0.53	46	0.00	14	0.07	21	0.29	23	0.34	19	0.31
Lushtak 2004		29	0.56	59	0.00	27	0.06	17	0.34	24	0.36	16	0.35
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.60	64	0.00	25	0.08	24	0.27	39	0.19	35	0.23
Magaloff 1978		18	0.59	16	0.01	8	0.15	9	0.49	12	0.40	11	0.44
Magin 1975		61	0.44	75	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.06	66	0.05
Michalowski 1933		84	0.18	28	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.04
Milkina 1970		5	0.70	2	0.32	2	0.41	2	0.75	1	0.72	1	0.73
Mohovich 1999		12	0.61	81	0.00	15	0.06	18	0.32	25	0.31	21	0.31
Moravec 1969		17	0.60	24	0.00	26	0.06	23	0.28	15	0.40	17	0.33
Morozova 2008		28	0.56	19	0.00	18	0.06	13	0.40	15	0.37	14	0.38
Neighaus 1950		20	0.58	40	0.00	17	0.06	14	0.39	31	0.25	22	0.31
Niedzielski 1931		77	0.37	13	0.01	76	0.03	84	0.03	43	0.09	65	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.51	89	0.00	28	0.05	32	0.20	25	0.26	36	0.23
Osinska 1989		26	0.56	23	0.00	33	0.06	28	0.22	17	0.36	26	0.28
Pachmann 1927		47	0.51	61	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	21	0.45	41	0.16
Paderewski 1930		65	0.43	78	0.00	79	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.53	72	0.00	45	0.04	44	0.08	43	0.12	51	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.52	18	0.00	31	0.05	26	0.24	7	0.54	15	0.36
Poblocka 1999		24	0.57	36	0.00	46	0.04	63	0.04	25	0.28	50	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.43	82	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	49	0.05	72	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.41	83	0.00	44	0.04	46	0.07	52	0.05	62	0.06
Rangell 2001		54	0.48	48	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.09	37	0.19	47	0.13
Richter 1976		33	0.54	41	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.12	31	0.23	40	0.17
Rosen 1989		40	0.53	49	0.00	49	0.07	45	0.07	33	0.24	46	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.42	79	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	38	0.25	55	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.38	69	0.00	67	0.03	83	0.03	23	0.36	53	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.38	70	0.00	66	0.03	81	0.03	22	0.35	57	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		60	0.45	80	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	32	0.25	59	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		64	0.43	84	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	19	0.36	49	0.12
Rossi 2007		82	0.25	50	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	45	0.08	64	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		73	0.39	15	0.01	55	0.05	55	0.05	7	0.48	44	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		7	0.66	5	0.03	10	0.20	10	0.49	4	0.60	8	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.56	56	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.17	16	0.43	28	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.40	62	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Shebanova 2002		13	0.61	39	0.00	16	0.06	15	0.37	18	0.43	12	0.40
Smith 1975		19	0.59	45	0.00	22	0.06	19	0.32	31	0.26	25	0.29
Sokolov 2002		35	0.53	60	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.08	53	0.05	61	0.06
Sztompka 1959		63	0.44	90	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.04
Tomsic 1995		2	0.73	3	0.06	4	0.19	4	0.67	4	0.63	2	0.65
Uninsky 1932		75	0.38	73	0.00	81	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04	78	0.04
Uninsky 1971		59	0.46	20	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	68	0.03	83	0.03
Wasowski 1980		56	0.48	10	0.01	41	0.04	41	0.10	20	0.33	37	0.18
Zak 1937		11	0.63	63	0.00	11	0.16	11	0.48	5	0.59	9	0.53
Zak 1951		8	0.65	22	0.00	9	0.20	8	0.54	5	0.64	5	0.59
Average		1	0.74	1	0.34	1	0.33	1	0.75	17	0.36	10	0.52
Random 1		88	-0.02	91	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	34	0.16	63	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.05	57	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	41	0.11	68	0.05
Random 3		87	-0.01	65	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	55	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).