Neighaus 1950

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		20	0.61	28	0.00	22	0.09	22	0.42	12	0.47	26	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.42	87	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	32	0.23	66	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.60	43	0.00	27	0.07	30	0.28	24	0.35	35	0.31
Bacha 2000		59	0.49	30	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	23	0.40	57	0.13
Badura 1965		79	0.36	88	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.04
Barbosa 1983		55	0.51	44	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.28	7	0.56	28	0.40
Biret 1990		17	0.62	37	0.00	25	0.11	28	0.36	7	0.56	25	0.45
Blet 2003		27	0.59	58	0.00	29	0.08	19	0.46	4	0.55	22	0.50
Block 1995		47	0.55	7	0.02	30	0.06	34	0.21	7	0.54	31	0.34
Blumental 1952		80	0.36	52	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	42	0.11	81	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		13	0.65	11	0.01	23	0.09	16	0.50	4	0.69	12	0.59
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.50	73	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	34	0.17	78	0.07
Bunin 1987		31	0.58	89	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	24	0.36	59	0.13
Bunin 1987b		30	0.58	55	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	24	0.35	48	0.17
Chiu 1999		41	0.55	19	0.00	21	0.11	18	0.46	9	0.62	18	0.53
Cohen 1997		82	0.34	48	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	43	0.11	84	0.05
Cortot 1951		56	0.51	14	0.01	43	0.05	38	0.16	25	0.33	38	0.23
Csalog 1996		74	0.40	59	0.00	87	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.05	86	0.04
Czerny 1949		42	0.55	60	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.21	15	0.56	30	0.34
Czerny 1990		43	0.55	74	0.00	39	0.06	45	0.11	33	0.22	50	0.16
Duchoud 2007		33	0.58	63	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	14	0.47	37	0.25
Ezaki 2006		5	0.69	22	0.00	5	0.11	14	0.55	4	0.66	9	0.60
Falvay 1989		32	0.58	50	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.25	14	0.39	33	0.31
Farrell 1958		21	0.61	6	0.02	17	0.11	23	0.41	1	0.70	16	0.54
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.38	69	0.00	86	0.04	76	0.04	51	0.06	83	0.05
Fliere 1977		8	0.68	39	0.00	13	0.12	13	0.55	6	0.63	11	0.59
Fou 1978		19	0.62	12	0.01	19	0.10	21	0.42	7	0.52	23	0.47
Francois 1956		16	0.63	75	0.00	8	0.12	12	0.56	3	0.66	8	0.61
Friedman 1923		85	0.33	80	0.00	68	0.03	81	0.03	9	0.46	63	0.12
Friedman 1923b		81	0.35	76	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	7	0.51	56	0.14
Friedman 1930		67	0.45	67	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	14	0.50	49	0.16
Garcia 2007		83	0.34	61	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	18	0.43	72	0.09
Garcia 2007b		86	0.32	84	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	20	0.36	70	0.10
Gierzod 1998		26	0.60	77	0.00	34	0.08	32	0.24	9	0.42	32	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.69	26	0.00	6	0.12	5	0.60	5	0.66	6	0.63
Groot 1988		9	0.67	13	0.01	15	0.16	9	0.57	5	0.59	13	0.58
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.58	5	0.02	3	0.15	3	0.65	2	0.56	10	0.60
Hatto 1993		71	0.42	68	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	36	0.18	76	0.08
Hatto 1997		66	0.46	15	0.01	54	0.06	54	0.06	31	0.22	64	0.11
Horowitz 1949		35	0.58	34	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	13	0.39	54	0.14
Indjic 1988		72	0.42	54	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	39	0.15	80	0.07
Kapell 1951		50	0.54	62	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	46	0.09	79	0.07
Kissin 1993		37	0.57	45	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.13	25	0.32	43	0.20
Kushner 1989		40	0.56	90	0.00	57	0.06	55	0.06	29	0.25	60	0.12
Luisada 1991		44	0.55	24	0.00	35	0.06	40	0.14	20	0.34	39	0.22
Lushtak 2004		18	0.62	8	0.01	20	0.10	20	0.45	6	0.58	20	0.51
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.70	70	0.00	12	0.08	10	0.57	10	0.51	17	0.54
Magaloff 1978		6	0.68	20	0.00	14	0.12	6	0.60	4	0.55	14	0.57
Magin 1975		63	0.48	42	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	32	0.21	71	0.09
Michalowski 1933		69	0.43	32	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	31	0.30	61	0.12
Milkina 1970		45	0.55	27	0.00	52	0.08	47	0.08	21	0.36	47	0.17
Mohovich 1999		7	0.68	16	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.57	2	0.74	3	0.65
Moravec 1969		65	0.47	46	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	41	0.11	77	0.07
Morozova 2008		46	0.55	18	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.37	12	0.40	29	0.38
Neighaus 1950		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.40	78	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	57	0.04	89	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.66	3	0.03	18	0.12	24	0.38	13	0.44	27	0.41
Osinska 1989		25	0.60	10	0.01	24	0.09	26	0.37	8	0.56	24	0.46
Pachmann 1927		53	0.52	29	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	14	0.53	44	0.19
Paderewski 1930		54	0.51	64	0.00	45	0.07	42	0.13	20	0.34	41	0.21
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.57	4	0.02	11	0.09	17	0.49	7	0.61	15	0.55
Pierdomenico 2008		49	0.54	38	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	8	0.52	46	0.18
Poblocka 1999		39	0.56	66	0.00	40	0.05	37	0.17	35	0.20	45	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.60	23	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.36	5	0.70	21	0.50
Rachmaninoff 1923		58	0.49	71	0.00	31	0.07	36	0.19	13	0.47	36	0.30
Rangell 2001		28	0.59	33	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	11	0.43	51	0.16
Richter 1976		73	0.40	41	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.05	85	0.04
Rosen 1989		2	0.73	17	0.00	2	0.19	2	0.71	2	0.77	2	0.74
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.45	72	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	31	0.35	68	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.34	65	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	36	0.18	74	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.38	79	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	24	0.34	69	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		52	0.52	40	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	15	0.49	52	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.40	81	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	28	0.22	75	0.08
Rossi 2007		87	0.24	82	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	13	0.36	65	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.24	85	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.03	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.48	49	0.00	74	0.05	64	0.05	37	0.16	73	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.52	51	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	31	0.30	58	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		61	0.49	83	0.00	61	0.05	63	0.05	34	0.22	67	0.10
Shebanova 2002		36	0.58	56	0.00	56	0.07	49	0.07	33	0.30	55	0.14
Smith 1975		15	0.64	25	0.00	4	0.11	4	0.64	4	0.61	7	0.62
Sokolov 2002		22	0.60	57	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.12	30	0.34	42	0.20
Sztompka 1959		29	0.58	47	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	15	0.45	53	0.15
Tomsic 1995		10	0.67	21	0.00	16	0.13	15	0.52	8	0.53	19	0.52
Uninsky 1932		60	0.49	35	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	23	0.26	62	0.12
Uninsky 1971		48	0.55	31	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.21	17	0.45	34	0.31
Wasowski 1980		64	0.48	36	0.00	44	0.06	39	0.15	26	0.30	40	0.21
Zak 1937		12	0.66	2	0.03	9	0.12	11	0.57	3	0.70	5	0.63
Zak 1951		14	0.65	9	0.01	7	0.11	7	0.58	3	0.70	4	0.64
Average		1	0.81	1	0.72	1	0.72	1	0.89	2	0.71	1	0.79
Random 1		89	0.02	53	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	29	0.21	82	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.06	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	0.01	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.03	90	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).