Shebanova 2002

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		40	0.52	76	0.00	46	0.06	58	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.31	86	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	54	0.03	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.72	2	0.10	2	0.30	3	0.71	4	0.62	5	0.66
Bacha 2000		21	0.58	66	0.00	34	0.09	17	0.43	2	0.63	10	0.52
Badura 1965		61	0.42	51	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	35	0.21	51	0.11
Barbosa 1983		44	0.51	39	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.35	22	0.43	21	0.39
Biret 1990		48	0.49	52	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	52	0.05	66	0.05
Blet 2003		29	0.56	23	0.00	41	0.07	37	0.25	27	0.30	34	0.27
Block 1995		42	0.52	37	0.00	52	0.05	68	0.05	23	0.31	50	0.12
Blumental 1952		57	0.45	60	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	15	0.36	39	0.20
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.59	58	0.00	38	0.09	35	0.27	24	0.41	29	0.33
Brailowsky 1960		51	0.47	87	0.00	57	0.06	54	0.06	67	0.04	61	0.05
Bunin 1987		71	0.35	77	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.04	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		70	0.35	82	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.04	74	0.03
Chiu 1999		6	0.65	25	0.00	5	0.20	6	0.61	2	0.76	3	0.68
Cohen 1997		58	0.45	53	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	20	0.36	43	0.15
Cortot 1951		62	0.42	88	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.05	70	0.04
Csalog 1996		14	0.60	13	0.01	12	0.13	10	0.50	3	0.59	9	0.54
Czerny 1949		75	0.32	70	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.03	78	0.03
Czerny 1990		9	0.62	29	0.00	16	0.10	12	0.49	17	0.40	17	0.44
Duchoud 2007		35	0.54	8	0.02	27	0.06	29	0.35	29	0.38	25	0.36
Ezaki 2006		46	0.50	44	0.00	59	0.08	46	0.08	73	0.03	60	0.05
Falvay 1989		11	0.61	63	0.00	18	0.10	18	0.43	15	0.37	20	0.40
Farrell 1958		65	0.39	89	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		79	0.29	90	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.03	88	0.02
Fliere 1977		5	0.69	9	0.01	7	0.22	5	0.64	3	0.68	4	0.66
Fou 1978		8	0.63	50	0.00	9	0.12	9	0.53	8	0.51	12	0.52
Francois 1956		64	0.41	47	0.00	63	0.05	66	0.05	71	0.03	71	0.04
Friedman 1923		88	0.15	28	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.16	41	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.04	81	0.03
Friedman 1930		82	0.26	57	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	75	0.03	77	0.03
Garcia 2007		72	0.35	59	0.00	69	0.06	57	0.06	15	0.45	42	0.16
Garcia 2007b		77	0.30	61	0.00	71	0.05	65	0.05	13	0.41	45	0.14
Gierzod 1998		34	0.54	78	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.39	22	0.27	30	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		60	0.44	45	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		15	0.60	16	0.01	36	0.07	32	0.31	28	0.30	31	0.30
Harasiewicz 1955		66	0.39	55	0.00	61	0.06	55	0.06	87	0.02	83	0.03
Hatto 1993		53	0.47	24	0.00	10	0.12	20	0.40	10	0.53	16	0.46
Hatto 1997		69	0.38	32	0.00	33	0.08	36	0.25	63	0.04	52	0.10
Horowitz 1949		49	0.49	17	0.01	51	0.05	63	0.05	50	0.05	64	0.05
Indjic 1988		54	0.46	48	0.00	11	0.14	26	0.38	10	0.48	18	0.43
Kapell 1951		43	0.51	42	0.00	60	0.06	56	0.06	59	0.04	63	0.05
Kissin 1993		1	0.77	1	0.58	1	0.57	1	0.79	1	0.81	1	0.80
Kushner 1989		4	0.69	12	0.01	6	0.19	4	0.66	3	0.80	2	0.73
Luisada 1991		19	0.58	10	0.01	4	0.19	8	0.53	6	0.55	8	0.54
Lushtak 2004		32	0.55	40	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.18	35	0.19	41	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		12	0.61	30	0.00	26	0.06	30	0.34	49	0.05	48	0.13
Magaloff 1978		27	0.57	43	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.24	50	0.07	46	0.13
Magin 1975		50	0.49	22	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.32	22	0.27	32	0.29
Michalowski 1933		67	0.39	20	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	40	0.17	56	0.09
Milkina 1970		26	0.57	67	0.00	17	0.09	16	0.46	8	0.46	15	0.46
Mohovich 1999		45	0.50	35	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	50	0.05	65	0.05
Moravec 1969		23	0.58	73	0.00	13	0.16	11	0.50	5	0.55	11	0.52
Morozova 2008		36	0.53	33	0.00	19	0.09	24	0.39	20	0.30	28	0.34
Neighaus 1950		25	0.58	79	0.00	35	0.10	33	0.30	49	0.07	44	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.46	18	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.14	13	0.39	36	0.23
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.64	4	0.04	8	0.17	7	0.57	5	0.53	7	0.55
Osinska 1989		39	0.52	80	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	52	0.06	57	0.07
Pachmann 1927		41	0.52	34	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	22	0.44	37	0.23
Paderewski 1930		33	0.54	7	0.02	22	0.07	39	0.23	23	0.30	35	0.26
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.49	27	0.00	55	0.07	48	0.07	34	0.19	49	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		24	0.58	19	0.00	21	0.08	15	0.47	1	0.68	6	0.57
Poblocka 1999		13	0.60	14	0.01	20	0.08	21	0.40	22	0.31	27	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.34	83	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		81	0.27	36	0.00	74	0.05	69	0.05	51	0.05	62	0.05
Rangell 2001		22	0.58	54	0.00	37	0.07	28	0.35	13	0.42	23	0.38
Richter 1976		30	0.56	11	0.01	23	0.07	40	0.22	23	0.33	33	0.27
Rosen 1989		16	0.60	38	0.00	31	0.09	25	0.38	20	0.39	22	0.38
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.30	81	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.19	26	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	80	0.03	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.20	46	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.32	74	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.25	75	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		86	0.18	49	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	53	0.03	86	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.28	85	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	29	0.29	47	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.61	62	0.00	15	0.08	13	0.49	7	0.55	13	0.52
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.56	64	0.00	29	0.09	22	0.39	13	0.45	19	0.42
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.38	21	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	62	0.04	69	0.04
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		56	0.45	65	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	57	0.04	68	0.04
Sokolov 2002		59	0.45	31	0.00	70	0.05	67	0.05	73	0.03	67	0.04
Sztompka 1959		38	0.52	15	0.01	53	0.05	64	0.05	42	0.16	55	0.09
Tomsic 1995		18	0.59	71	0.00	39	0.07	41	0.22	43	0.14	40	0.18
Uninsky 1932		52	0.47	5	0.02	54	0.06	49	0.06	37	0.16	53	0.10
Uninsky 1971		63	0.42	68	0.00	68	0.05	70	0.05	86	0.02	75	0.03
Wasowski 1980		37	0.53	6	0.02	24	0.07	34	0.27	9	0.45	26	0.35
Zak 1937		20	0.58	72	0.00	14	0.09	14	0.48	11	0.49	14	0.48
Zak 1951		31	0.55	84	0.00	25	0.07	19	0.42	29	0.31	24	0.36
Average		2	0.72	3	0.06	3	0.19	2	0.74	49	0.06	38	0.21
Random 1		90	0.06	69	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	4	0.50	54	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.05	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.08	56	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.17	59	0.06

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).