Duchoud 2007

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		7	0.66	5	0.03	7	0.08	5	0.45	41	0.19	21	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.60	58	0.00	20	0.08	26	0.33	21	0.29	17	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.72	2	0.08	3	0.33	2	0.66	7	0.51	2	0.58
Bacha 2000		48	0.54	41	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	50	0.06	54	0.05
Badura 1965		45	0.56	76	0.00	33	0.09	29	0.32	30	0.32	14	0.32
Barbosa 1983		55	0.51	6	0.02	24	0.05	39	0.16	37	0.18	30	0.17
Biret 1990		8	0.65	14	0.01	21	0.11	19	0.38	37	0.19	23	0.27
Blet 2003		28	0.58	49	0.00	35	0.08	28	0.32	54	0.05	35	0.13
Block 1995		72	0.45	52	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.03	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		75	0.43	48	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	80	0.02	84	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		53	0.52	62	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.45	69	0.00	80	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.04
Bunin 1987		25	0.59	71	0.00	38	0.14	24	0.34	21	0.39	9	0.36
Bunin 1987b		27	0.58	73	0.00	37	0.11	23	0.35	22	0.39	8	0.37
Chiu 1999		58	0.50	29	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.16	38	0.18	29	0.17
Cohen 1997		87	0.32	13	0.01	78	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		13	0.63	22	0.00	19	0.07	14	0.40	15	0.41	5	0.40
Csalog 1996		80	0.39	82	0.00	53	0.04	59	0.04	55	0.05	68	0.04
Czerny 1949		35	0.57	7	0.02	26	0.05	34	0.28	59	0.05	37	0.12
Czerny 1990		24	0.59	23	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.15	60	0.04	49	0.08
Duchoud 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ezaki 2006		11	0.63	50	0.00	28	0.06	31	0.32	44	0.09	28	0.17
Falvay 1989		77	0.42	80	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	74	0.03
Farrell 1958		41	0.56	10	0.02	58	0.04	60	0.04	74	0.04	61	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.49	87	0.00	52	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.04	69	0.04
Fliere 1977		5	0.66	56	0.00	8	0.08	15	0.39	51	0.05	34	0.14
Fou 1978		54	0.52	43	0.00	59	0.05	55	0.05	81	0.03	62	0.04
Francois 1956		56	0.51	63	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04
Friedman 1923		79	0.40	42	0.00	70	0.05	50	0.05	41	0.16	45	0.09
Friedman 1923b		78	0.40	67	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	42	0.15	48	0.08
Friedman 1930		73	0.44	20	0.00	62	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.04	82	0.03
Garcia 2007		47	0.55	85	0.00	36	0.09	36	0.23	25	0.33	22	0.28
Garcia 2007b		76	0.42	81	0.00	63	0.04	56	0.04	74	0.03	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.63	47	0.00	30	0.06	33	0.28	49	0.05	38	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.57	11	0.02	42	0.06	37	0.17	43	0.10	36	0.13
Groot 1988		38	0.57	21	0.00	25	0.06	42	0.15	69	0.04	50	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		52	0.52	57	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.32	53	0.04	41	0.11
Hatto 1993		43	0.56	66	0.00	18	0.08	20	0.36	20	0.29	15	0.32
Hatto 1997		22	0.60	60	0.00	10	0.07	13	0.40	20	0.31	11	0.35
Horowitz 1949		60	0.50	32	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	46	0.06	66	0.04
Indjic 1988		31	0.58	59	0.00	12	0.06	17	0.38	20	0.32	10	0.35
Kapell 1951		9	0.65	38	0.00	11	0.07	9	0.42	35	0.20	20	0.29
Kissin 1993		59	0.50	64	0.00	67	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04
Kushner 1989		10	0.63	17	0.01	34	0.08	35	0.26	51	0.05	40	0.11
Luisada 1991		42	0.56	30	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	70	0.04	58	0.04
Lushtak 2004		26	0.58	36	0.00	15	0.07	12	0.40	47	0.06	33	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.56	26	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.03	77	0.03
Magaloff 1978		67	0.47	74	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Magin 1975		16	0.62	51	0.00	13	0.06	16	0.38	23	0.28	13	0.33
Michalowski 1933		49	0.54	12	0.01	5	0.10	7	0.42	16	0.42	4	0.42
Milkina 1970		36	0.57	84	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	84	0.04	64	0.04
Mohovich 1999		32	0.58	27	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	55	0.05	52	0.07
Moravec 1969		70	0.47	16	0.01	79	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.04
Morozova 2008		33	0.57	65	0.00	32	0.07	22	0.35	44	0.08	31	0.17
Neighaus 1950		12	0.63	77	0.00	14	0.07	18	0.38	45	0.09	27	0.18
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.47	28	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	59	0.04	76	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.80	1	0.56	1	0.56	1	0.73	3	0.62	1	0.67
Osinska 1989		51	0.53	18	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.03	72	0.03
Pachmann 1927		84	0.37	88	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.04	79	0.03
Paderewski 1930		68	0.47	86	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	89	0.02	78	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.54	78	0.00	47	0.06	46	0.06	65	0.04	55	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.48	44	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	40	0.15	46	0.08
Poblocka 1999		15	0.63	54	0.00	9	0.06	8	0.42	30	0.23	16	0.31
Rabcewiczowa 1932		57	0.51	33	0.00	66	0.05	51	0.05	74	0.03	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.60	15	0.01	27	0.06	21	0.36	28	0.23	19	0.29
Rangell 2001		30	0.58	9	0.02	44	0.05	43	0.12	10	0.44	25	0.23
Richter 1976		62	0.49	90	0.00	50	0.05	48	0.05	34	0.19	42	0.10
Rosen 1989		39	0.57	34	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.15	68	0.04	47	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.48	37	0.00	51	0.04	57	0.04	35	0.20	44	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.38	91	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	60	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.35	53	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.44	61	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	53	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.37	46	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	65	0.04	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.25	75	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.04	73	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.38	24	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.04	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.35	35	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	74	0.04	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		63	0.49	25	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.60	31	0.00	16	0.08	11	0.42	36	0.27	12	0.34
Shebanova 2002		20	0.60	8	0.02	23	0.05	32	0.31	35	0.18	24	0.24
Smith 1975		17	0.62	19	0.00	22	0.07	27	0.33	34	0.15	26	0.22
Sokolov 2002		2	0.76	3	0.05	2	0.31	4	0.55	2	0.57	3	0.56
Sztompka 1959		6	0.66	45	0.00	6	0.08	6	0.45	25	0.32	6	0.38
Tomsic 1995		64	0.49	40	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	50	0.05	65	0.04
Uninsky 1932		29	0.58	72	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.34	31	0.29	18	0.31
Uninsky 1971		19	0.60	55	0.00	17	0.09	10	0.42	29	0.34	7	0.38
Wasowski 1980		37	0.57	39	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.10	79	0.04	53	0.06
Zak 1937		40	0.56	70	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	66	0.04	63	0.04
Zak 1951		46	0.56	68	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	66	0.05	56	0.05
Average		3	0.74	4	0.04	4	0.36	3	0.62	64	0.04	32	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.07	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	12	0.43	51	0.07
Random 2		90	-0.01	89	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	9	0.41	43	0.09
Random 3		89	0.15	79	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	1	0.70	39	0.12

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).