Friedman 1930

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		68	0.23	85	0.00	52	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.02	85	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.30	68	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	47	0.04	62	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.46	9	0.01	17	0.10	11	0.52	41	0.13	15	0.26
Bacha 2000		84	0.09	77	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.03	82	0.02
Badura 1965		33	0.36	25	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	54	0.05	51	0.07
Barbosa 1983		59	0.25	60	0.00	63	0.05	55	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05
Biret 1990		54	0.28	69	0.00	50	0.04	67	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.04
Blet 2003		27	0.38	29	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.40	39	0.16	16	0.25
Block 1995		60	0.25	55	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	83	0.02	79	0.03
Blumental 1952		55	0.27	20	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.24	31	0.21	21	0.22
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.31	80	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.02	80	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		82	0.10	73	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.02	83	0.02
Bunin 1987		12	0.44	11	0.01	7	0.13	6	0.57	16	0.43	9	0.50
Bunin 1987b		11	0.44	43	0.00	8	0.22	5	0.57	16	0.43	7	0.50
Chiu 1999		32	0.37	16	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	48	0.05	54	0.06
Cohen 1997		81	0.10	51	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Cortot 1951		40	0.33	63	0.00	37	0.09	33	0.28	40	0.15	23	0.20
Csalog 1996		87	0.03	44	0.00	87	0.01	89	0.01	84	0.02	90	0.01
Czerny 1949		28	0.37	36	0.00	32	0.08	25	0.38	39	0.15	19	0.24
Czerny 1990		19	0.40	30	0.00	18	0.09	19	0.47	42	0.13	18	0.25
Duchoud 2007		17	0.41	70	0.00	20	0.07	17	0.48	35	0.25	13	0.35
Ezaki 2006		29	0.37	78	0.00	35	0.09	30	0.30	65	0.04	32	0.11
Falvay 1989		79	0.14	86	0.00	80	0.04	57	0.04	78	0.03	68	0.03
Farrell 1958		61	0.25	87	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	59	0.04	58	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		80	0.13	88	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.03
Fliere 1977		8	0.46	18	0.00	15	0.08	16	0.48	45	0.10	20	0.22
Fou 1978		75	0.17	26	0.00	78	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.03	59	0.04
Francois 1956		44	0.32	52	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.28	64	0.03	40	0.09
Friedman 1923		1	0.68	1	0.42	1	0.42	1	0.78	2	0.83	2	0.80
Friedman 1923b		2	0.68	2	0.25	2	0.65	2	0.78	2	0.82	1	0.80
Friedman 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007		64	0.24	57	0.00	67	0.06	47	0.06	40	0.13	39	0.09
Garcia 2007b		56	0.27	74	0.00	66	0.04	59	0.04	28	0.26	38	0.10
Gierzod 1998		31	0.37	53	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.37	52	0.05	28	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.36	6	0.03	14	0.08	31	0.29	52	0.04	36	0.11
Groot 1988		49	0.30	54	0.00	29	0.07	38	0.20	65	0.03	45	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.40	14	0.01	40	0.10	37	0.21	73	0.03	47	0.08
Hatto 1993		37	0.33	10	0.01	48	0.04	58	0.04	40	0.15	46	0.08
Hatto 1997		45	0.31	47	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	45	0.09	49	0.07
Horowitz 1949		39	0.33	19	0.00	51	0.03	71	0.03	54	0.05	60	0.04
Indjic 1988		43	0.32	75	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	37	0.17	34	0.11
Kapell 1951		14	0.43	15	0.01	11	0.13	13	0.52	28	0.39	11	0.45
Kissin 1993		76	0.16	45	0.00	75	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	75	0.03
Kushner 1989		41	0.32	81	0.00	55	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.04	70	0.03
Luisada 1991		63	0.24	71	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	83	0.03	66	0.03
Lushtak 2004		26	0.39	64	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.40	62	0.04	30	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.40	49	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.45	66	0.04	29	0.13
Magaloff 1978		25	0.39	3	0.06	9	0.14	18	0.47	40	0.15	14	0.27
Magin 1975		53	0.28	21	0.00	65	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.03	57	0.04
Michalowski 1933		4	0.49	17	0.00	13	0.10	10	0.52	17	0.42	10	0.47
Milkina 1970		88	0.00	89	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	89	0.02	89	0.01
Mohovich 1999		67	0.23	90	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	81	0.03	63	0.04
Moravec 1969		65	0.24	50	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.12	54	0.05	41	0.08
Morozova 2008		24	0.39	33	0.00	34	0.06	28	0.32	60	0.04	35	0.11
Neighaus 1950		10	0.45	41	0.00	19	0.07	14	0.50	61	0.05	25	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.21	48	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.13	48	0.05	43	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.40	31	0.00	16	0.09	27	0.32	61	0.04	33	0.11
Osinska 1989		52	0.29	46	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	67	0.03
Pachmann 1927		78	0.16	22	0.00	79	0.05	48	0.05	68	0.04	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		15	0.42	7	0.02	10	0.11	9	0.54	11	0.50	5	0.52
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.29	79	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.10	65	0.04	52	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		38	0.33	40	0.00	59	0.03	70	0.03	59	0.04	69	0.03
Poblocka 1999		42	0.32	61	0.00	39	0.09	34	0.27	70	0.04	37	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		35	0.35	37	0.00	46	0.05	54	0.05	51	0.05	55	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		7	0.46	13	0.01	5	0.18	4	0.62	8	0.52	3	0.57
Rangell 2001		69	0.22	82	0.00	76	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.04
Richter 1976		57	0.26	12	0.01	53	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.03	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		18	0.41	65	0.00	25	0.08	24	0.39	40	0.16	17	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		16	0.42	35	0.00	21	0.09	12	0.52	16	0.52	6	0.52
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.18	58	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	70	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.22	72	0.00	64	0.05	50	0.05	44	0.13	48	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		36	0.35	34	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.20	36	0.22	22	0.21
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.16	66	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	81	0.03
Rossi 2007		72	0.20	83	0.00	77	0.05	49	0.05	44	0.08	53	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		90	-0.05	67	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	88	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		89	-0.01	38	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		83	0.09	27	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		6	0.47	32	0.00	12	0.10	15	0.49	17	0.41	12	0.45
Shebanova 2002		58	0.26	24	0.00	54	0.03	75	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Smith 1975		23	0.40	23	0.00	27	0.09	21	0.43	48	0.05	26	0.15
Sokolov 2002		30	0.37	76	0.00	33	0.06	35	0.27	57	0.05	31	0.12
Sztompka 1959		3	0.49	28	0.00	4	0.15	8	0.56	16	0.44	8	0.50
Tomsic 1995		74	0.18	62	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.03
Uninsky 1932		13	0.44	5	0.03	3	0.21	7	0.56	7	0.50	4	0.53
Uninsky 1971		50	0.30	42	0.00	26	0.07	29	0.31	50	0.06	27	0.14
Wasowski 1980		47	0.31	8	0.02	30	0.06	40	0.17	68	0.04	42	0.08
Zak 1937		66	0.23	56	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.03
Zak 1951		62	0.24	39	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03
Average		5	0.48	4	0.05	6	0.19	3	0.65	53	0.05	24	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.07	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		86	0.05	59	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	29	0.22	50	0.07
Random 3		85	0.06	91	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	20	0.35	44	0.08

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).