Barbosa 1983

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		12	0.60	29	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.42	56	0.04	27	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		65	0.41	57	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	88	0.02	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		44	0.49	42	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	75	0.03	71	0.04
Bacha 2000		35	0.50	30	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.21	31	0.22	16	0.21
Badura 1965		25	0.53	41	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	72	0.04	60	0.05
Barbosa 1983		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Biret 1990		18	0.56	4	0.06	8	0.13	10	0.52	30	0.25	9	0.36
Blet 2003		4	0.65	6	0.04	3	0.22	9	0.53	12	0.41	4	0.47
Block 1995		77	0.34	86	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03
Blumental 1952		62	0.42	63	0.00	70	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.03	69	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		71	0.37	70	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		27	0.52	5	0.04	15	0.09	32	0.21	39	0.21	17	0.21
Bunin 1987		58	0.44	56	0.00	63	0.07	46	0.07	51	0.05	51	0.06
Bunin 1987b		61	0.43	66	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.05	66	0.04
Chiu 1999		1	0.72	1	0.36	1	0.35	1	0.72	2	0.66	1	0.69
Cohen 1997		64	0.42	53	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	23	0.25	39	0.10
Cortot 1951		53	0.45	72	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	71	0.04	73	0.04
Csalog 1996		68	0.39	59	0.00	38	0.08	28	0.23	26	0.28	12	0.25
Czerny 1949		42	0.49	13	0.01	57	0.05	59	0.05	67	0.05	59	0.05
Czerny 1990		15	0.57	38	0.00	27	0.07	22	0.28	68	0.04	36	0.11
Duchoud 2007		31	0.51	24	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.18	39	0.16	22	0.17
Ezaki 2006		3	0.65	3	0.09	6	0.14	3	0.61	24	0.32	6	0.44
Falvay 1989		19	0.55	43	0.00	21	0.06	34	0.20	37	0.27	15	0.23
Farrell 1958		22	0.54	27	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.05	57	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		24	0.53	52	0.00	30	0.05	23	0.28	30	0.21	13	0.24
Fliere 1977		14	0.58	36	0.00	16	0.09	11	0.46	64	0.04	24	0.14
Fou 1978		32	0.51	10	0.02	13	0.12	20	0.30	42	0.11	19	0.18
Francois 1956		16	0.56	76	0.00	25	0.06	17	0.33	43	0.11	18	0.19
Friedman 1923		75	0.34	28	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	60	0.05	74	0.04
Friedman 1923b		74	0.35	25	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	56	0.06	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		66	0.40	9	0.02	65	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.07	58	0.05
Garcia 2007		76	0.34	90	0.00	80	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		84	0.23	62	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	82	0.03	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		51	0.46	45	0.00	61	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.03	83	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		48	0.47	16	0.01	22	0.07	35	0.20	45	0.09	28	0.13
Groot 1988		8	0.60	15	0.01	10	0.15	6	0.60	29	0.38	3	0.48
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.51	22	0.01	20	0.05	44	0.12	66	0.03	52	0.06
Hatto 1993		54	0.45	20	0.01	43	0.07	42	0.13	65	0.04	47	0.07
Hatto 1997		43	0.49	49	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.17	46	0.08	32	0.12
Horowitz 1949		72	0.36	60	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	84	0.02	78	0.03
Indjic 1988		47	0.47	12	0.01	42	0.07	40	0.14	64	0.04	45	0.07
Kapell 1951		46	0.47	58	0.00	26	0.06	21	0.29	66	0.04	33	0.11
Kissin 1993		60	0.43	34	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.03	80	0.03
Kushner 1989		38	0.50	91	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	75	0.03	64	0.04
Luisada 1991		17	0.56	74	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.18	56	0.04	44	0.08
Lushtak 2004		2	0.67	14	0.01	2	0.19	5	0.60	23	0.28	7	0.41
Malcuzynski 1961		79	0.29	71	0.00	81	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.03	77	0.03
Magaloff 1978		55	0.45	39	0.00	47	0.06	54	0.06	60	0.05	55	0.05
Magin 1975		80	0.28	80	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Michalowski 1933		83	0.25	82	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03
Milkina 1970		59	0.44	79	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	69	0.04	65	0.04
Mohovich 1999		7	0.61	2	0.11	7	0.14	4	0.61	26	0.35	5	0.46
Moravec 1969		52	0.45	31	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.03	75	0.03
Morozova 2008		20	0.55	37	0.00	19	0.07	24	0.27	47	0.05	31	0.12
Neighaus 1950		33	0.50	75	0.00	31	0.06	25	0.26	67	0.04	41	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.40	26	0.00	59	0.06	56	0.06	62	0.03	63	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.51	33	0.00	28	0.06	19	0.31	47	0.05	30	0.12
Osinska 1989		21	0.55	78	0.00	29	0.06	27	0.26	64	0.04	37	0.10
Pachmann 1927		49	0.47	85	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	26	0.21	34	0.11
Paderewski 1930		70	0.37	77	0.00	69	0.05	62	0.05	68	0.03	67	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.60	18	0.01	24	0.06	16	0.36	49	0.05	26	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.32	54	0.00	79	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		63	0.42	81	0.00	53	0.07	47	0.07	71	0.04	53	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.50	35	0.00	18	0.06	15	0.36	22	0.33	10	0.34
Rachmaninoff 1923		41	0.49	61	0.00	55	0.06	52	0.06	64	0.04	56	0.05
Rangell 2001		81	0.27	84	0.00	60	0.04	73	0.04	30	0.26	40	0.10
Richter 1976		73	0.35	51	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Rosen 1989		50	0.46	50	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	79	0.03	49	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.25	88	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.21	87	0.00	86	0.04	74	0.04	55	0.04	68	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.17	83	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.20	64	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.17	73	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		69	0.39	55	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	27	0.26	42	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.45	44	0.00	68	0.05	58	0.05	33	0.27	29	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		34	0.50	67	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.18	30	0.31	14	0.24
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.62	19	0.01	9	0.13	7	0.55	16	0.51	2	0.53
Schilhawsky 1960		36	0.50	32	0.00	37	0.06	41	0.14	69	0.04	46	0.07
Shebanova 2002		28	0.52	69	0.00	34	0.06	26	0.26	86	0.03	43	0.09
Smith 1975		13	0.58	8	0.02	12	0.13	8	0.53	25	0.29	8	0.39
Sokolov 2002		57	0.44	21	0.01	51	0.07	48	0.07	54	0.04	54	0.05
Sztompka 1959		39	0.50	46	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	74	0.04	48	0.06
Tomsic 1995		40	0.50	23	0.01	23	0.06	29	0.23	21	0.39	11	0.30
Uninsky 1932		26	0.53	47	0.00	36	0.06	31	0.22	62	0.05	38	0.10
Uninsky 1971		45	0.48	17	0.01	33	0.06	30	0.22	55	0.06	35	0.11
Wasowski 1980		23	0.54	11	0.02	5	0.15	18	0.32	44	0.09	20	0.17
Zak 1937		10	0.60	68	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.39	63	0.05	25	0.14
Zak 1951		9	0.60	40	0.00	11	0.14	12	0.45	53	0.06	23	0.16
Average		5	0.64	7	0.03	4	0.18	2	0.69	57	0.04	21	0.17
Random 1		89	-0.05	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	29	0.29	61	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.06	65	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	38	0.11	82	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.05	48	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	14	0.37	50	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).