Random 1

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

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).