Pierdomenico 2008

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