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

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).