Groot 1988

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		11	0.67	17	0.01	17	0.07	18	0.41	8	0.50	16	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.35	40	0.00	74	0.04	52	0.04	69	0.03	82	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.53	31	0.00	53	0.04	57	0.04	42	0.12	67	0.07
Bacha 2000		64	0.48	82	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	40	0.19	57	0.08
Badura 1965		71	0.43	46	0.00	69	0.03	71	0.03	40	0.15	65	0.07
Barbosa 1983		42	0.56	22	0.00	28	0.11	17	0.42	4	0.61	10	0.51
Biret 1990		67	0.47	83	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	53	0.04	88	0.03
Blet 2003		32	0.58	23	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.15	29	0.30	42	0.21
Block 1995		26	0.60	62	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.24	17	0.41	32	0.31
Blumental 1952		85	0.26	78	0.00	87	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.56	63	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.17	22	0.44	38	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.56	67	0.00	55	0.04	53	0.04	18	0.39	49	0.12
Bunin 1987		25	0.60	18	0.01	25	0.08	26	0.31	19	0.40	24	0.35
Bunin 1987b		24	0.60	55	0.00	26	0.08	27	0.31	19	0.40	23	0.35
Chiu 1999		68	0.47	73	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.23	23	0.42	31	0.31
Cohen 1997		77	0.34	74	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	51	0.06	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		73	0.39	90	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	53	0.05	89	0.03
Csalog 1996		48	0.53	52	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	29	0.31	52	0.11
Czerny 1949		56	0.52	41	0.00	64	0.03	66	0.03	36	0.23	61	0.08
Czerny 1990		12	0.66	26	0.00	18	0.09	9	0.50	12	0.50	11	0.50
Duchoud 2007		54	0.52	51	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.04
Ezaki 2006		16	0.64	53	0.00	23	0.07	19	0.38	24	0.31	26	0.34
Falvay 1989		4	0.71	13	0.01	3	0.14	2	0.63	5	0.64	2	0.63
Farrell 1958		58	0.50	79	0.00	75	0.04	60	0.04	33	0.24	54	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		70	0.46	84	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	50	0.06	84	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.71	3	0.07	7	0.12	6	0.57	9	0.59	6	0.58
Fou 1978		20	0.63	44	0.00	16	0.07	15	0.43	22	0.42	20	0.42
Francois 1956		8	0.70	20	0.00	13	0.09	11	0.48	6	0.56	9	0.52
Friedman 1923		88	0.15	50	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	46	0.08	81	0.04
Friedman 1923b		87	0.16	43	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	63	0.05	87	0.03
Friedman 1930		81	0.30	85	0.00	65	0.03	65	0.03	38	0.20	60	0.08
Garcia 2007		82	0.29	45	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	37	0.17	69	0.06
Garcia 2007b		84	0.26	37	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	17	0.40	56	0.09
Gierzod 1998		59	0.49	68	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	41	0.10	68	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.68	16	0.01	5	0.13	12	0.48	13	0.50	12	0.49
Groot 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Harasiewicz 1955		46	0.53	34	0.00	14	0.11	20	0.38	21	0.32	25	0.35
Hatto 1993		80	0.31	58	0.00	60	0.03	67	0.03	55	0.05	80	0.04
Hatto 1997		78	0.33	42	0.00	63	0.03	70	0.03	60	0.04	83	0.03
Horowitz 1949		17	0.64	15	0.01	11	0.08	13	0.45	5	0.52	13	0.48
Indjic 1988		79	0.33	60	0.00	62	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	77	0.04
Kapell 1951		38	0.57	86	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	56	0.05	75	0.04
Kissin 1993		14	0.65	24	0.00	15	0.06	16	0.43	15	0.46	17	0.44
Kushner 1989		19	0.63	64	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.21	22	0.34	37	0.27
Luisada 1991		49	0.53	21	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.14	62	0.07
Lushtak 2004		63	0.48	61	0.00	61	0.03	72	0.03	49	0.05	79	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.73	57	0.00	12	0.10	10	0.48	15	0.42	15	0.45
Magaloff 1978		6	0.70	10	0.01	4	0.12	8	0.55	6	0.49	8	0.52
Magin 1975		62	0.49	28	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	34	0.19	53	0.10
Michalowski 1933		75	0.35	47	0.00	66	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.06	72	0.05
Milkina 1970		18	0.64	29	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.27	15	0.41	29	0.33
Mohovich 1999		7	0.70	11	0.01	9	0.13	4	0.60	4	0.65	3	0.62
Moravec 1969		35	0.57	56	0.00	68	0.03	69	0.03	29	0.20	58	0.08
Morozova 2008		45	0.54	14	0.01	10	0.10	14	0.44	10	0.42	19	0.43
Neighaus 1950		10	0.67	49	0.00	8	0.12	5	0.59	9	0.57	7	0.58
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.47	65	0.00	77	0.02	80	0.02	42	0.09	74	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		52	0.52	48	0.00	73	0.04	58	0.04	56	0.04	76	0.04
Osinska 1989		41	0.56	69	0.00	49	0.04	56	0.04	48	0.06	70	0.05
Pachmann 1927		30	0.59	27	0.00	22	0.09	23	0.36	7	0.61	14	0.47
Paderewski 1930		36	0.57	32	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	32	0.18	55	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		13	0.66	4	0.04	6	0.12	3	0.60	2	0.71	1	0.65
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.49	87	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	19	0.32	48	0.13
Poblocka 1999		21	0.62	8	0.02	36	0.06	33	0.24	36	0.19	41	0.21
Rabcewiczowa 1932		65	0.47	80	0.00	71	0.04	54	0.04	41	0.18	59	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.53	12	0.01	27	0.09	29	0.29	19	0.39	27	0.34
Rangell 2001		55	0.52	88	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	50	0.05	73	0.05
Richter 1976		22	0.61	70	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.27	7	0.42	28	0.34
Rosen 1989		33	0.57	30	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.19	24	0.34	39	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.52	35	0.00	34	0.07	37	0.20	17	0.52	30	0.32
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.40	75	0.00	57	0.03	68	0.03	15	0.46	50	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		74	0.38	77	0.00	59	0.04	64	0.04	20	0.38	51	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		57	0.51	36	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	13	0.52	45	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.46	66	0.00	58	0.05	46	0.05	9	0.44	46	0.15
Rossi 2007		86	0.23	91	0.00	88	0.03	73	0.03	35	0.17	63	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.28	33	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	39	0.14	71	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.65	6	0.02	19	0.08	22	0.37	9	0.52	18	0.44
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.59	71	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.19	12	0.46	34	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.52	72	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	40	0.18	64	0.07
Shebanova 2002		27	0.60	7	0.02	29	0.07	28	0.30	32	0.31	35	0.30
Smith 1975		23	0.61	39	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.32	28	0.28	33	0.30
Sokolov 2002		29	0.59	54	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.15	38	0.22	43	0.18
Sztompka 1959		34	0.57	5	0.03	37	0.07	34	0.23	25	0.37	36	0.29
Tomsic 1995		2	0.73	2	0.14	2	0.17	7	0.55	3	0.64	4	0.59
Uninsky 1932		60	0.49	25	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.11	35	0.18	47	0.14
Uninsky 1971		44	0.54	19	0.01	41	0.06	44	0.12	39	0.24	44	0.17
Wasowski 1980		43	0.55	9	0.01	45	0.07	43	0.13	21	0.33	40	0.21
Zak 1937		37	0.57	38	0.00	21	0.08	24	0.34	17	0.41	22	0.37
Zak 1951		31	0.58	59	0.00	20	0.08	21	0.37	15	0.45	21	0.41
Average		1	0.80	1	0.49	1	0.49	1	0.79	12	0.44	5	0.59
Random 1		90	-0.04	76	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	23	0.26	66	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.05	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.04	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01

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).