Farrell 1958

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		23	0.63	14	0.01	46	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.60	32	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.11	42	0.09	44	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		28	0.62	62	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	67	0.03	78	0.04
Bacha 2000		12	0.67	80	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.22	18	0.34	18	0.27
Badura 1965		86	0.39	58	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Barbosa 1983		60	0.54	37	0.00	48	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.06	58	0.05
Biret 1990		2	0.76	3	0.10	2	0.24	2	0.59	3	0.54	1	0.56
Blet 2003		51	0.56	73	0.00	59	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.03	73	0.04
Block 1995		58	0.55	11	0.02	16	0.08	25	0.26	17	0.35	16	0.30
Blumental 1952		49	0.57	17	0.01	25	0.05	34	0.20	14	0.32	20	0.25
Boshniakovich 1969		45	0.59	88	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	46	0.07	51	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		16	0.66	70	0.00	34	0.08	33	0.20	22	0.35	19	0.26
Bunin 1987		80	0.43	78	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	64	0.04	88	0.03
Bunin 1987b		82	0.43	57	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	82	0.03
Chiu 1999		44	0.59	51	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.12	34	0.20	28	0.15
Cohen 1997		71	0.48	36	0.00	63	0.03	78	0.03	16	0.31	47	0.10
Cortot 1951		27	0.62	49	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.12	24	0.30	26	0.19
Csalog 1996		85	0.39	66	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.05	72	0.04
Czerny 1949		63	0.54	26	0.00	62	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.05	62	0.05
Czerny 1990		17	0.65	33	0.00	21	0.05	20	0.27	67	0.04	48	0.10
Duchoud 2007		52	0.56	19	0.01	65	0.04	74	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.04
Ezaki 2006		18	0.65	7	0.03	20	0.05	36	0.18	57	0.04	49	0.08
Falvay 1989		22	0.64	12	0.02	18	0.06	17	0.31	21	0.40	10	0.35
Farrell 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ferenczy 1958		65	0.52	85	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	66	0.04	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		9	0.67	90	0.00	29	0.07	22	0.26	61	0.04	43	0.10
Fou 1978		26	0.62	63	0.00	24	0.06	21	0.26	54	0.05	37	0.11
Francois 1956		30	0.61	31	0.00	19	0.06	19	0.28	37	0.21	23	0.24
Friedman 1923		83	0.43	91	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	48	0.07	65	0.05
Friedman 1923b		79	0.44	67	0.00	73	0.03	84	0.03	43	0.13	55	0.06
Friedman 1930		76	0.45	81	0.00	72	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05
Garcia 2007		34	0.61	16	0.01	15	0.07	16	0.34	5	0.54	6	0.43
Garcia 2007b		66	0.51	50	0.00	10	0.11	14	0.36	5	0.51	7	0.43
Gierzod 1998		14	0.66	35	0.00	28	0.05	29	0.24	56	0.04	46	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.61	46	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	55	0.04	63	0.05
Groot 1988		3	0.71	6	0.04	4	0.16	5	0.52	16	0.49	3	0.50
Harasiewicz 1955		67	0.50	43	0.00	56	0.07	45	0.07	84	0.02	79	0.04
Hatto 1993		64	0.53	47	0.00	78	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.06	64	0.05
Hatto 1997		48	0.58	29	0.00	71	0.05	57	0.05	80	0.03	74	0.04
Horowitz 1949		56	0.55	72	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	47	0.05	68	0.04
Indjic 1988		61	0.54	86	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	48	0.06	71	0.04
Kapell 1951		50	0.57	68	0.00	45	0.04	46	0.07	76	0.04	56	0.05
Kissin 1993		54	0.56	41	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	83	0.03	70	0.04
Kushner 1989		19	0.65	75	0.00	30	0.06	23	0.26	59	0.05	38	0.11
Luisada 1991		13	0.66	25	0.00	31	0.05	28	0.24	45	0.08	30	0.14
Lushtak 2004		10	0.67	39	0.00	9	0.10	10	0.42	32	0.20	17	0.29
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.58	64	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04
Magaloff 1978		5	0.70	5	0.04	5	0.13	7	0.49	10	0.47	4	0.48
Magin 1975		70	0.49	56	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Michalowski 1933		88	0.36	89	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	61	0.06	69	0.04
Milkina 1970		7	0.68	45	0.00	12	0.07	13	0.37	37	0.16	21	0.24
Mohovich 1999		11	0.67	83	0.00	14	0.07	8	0.45	41	0.13	22	0.24
Moravec 1969		55	0.56	60	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	33	0.26	35	0.11
Morozova 2008		38	0.60	40	0.00	23	0.05	26	0.25	63	0.04	45	0.10
Neighaus 1950		4	0.71	18	0.01	8	0.20	4	0.52	35	0.20	13	0.32
Niedzielski 1931		41	0.60	20	0.01	40	0.05	40	0.12	19	0.35	25	0.20
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.65	10	0.02	39	0.05	42	0.11	55	0.05	52	0.07
Osinska 1989		6	0.69	1	0.24	1	0.24	3	0.58	12	0.48	2	0.53
Pachmann 1927		69	0.49	74	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	42	0.10	57	0.05
Paderewski 1930		29	0.61	13	0.01	11	0.09	9	0.43	6	0.44	5	0.43
Perlemuter 1992		43	0.59	4	0.08	6	0.14	11	0.41	27	0.26	11	0.33
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.55	38	0.00	36	0.05	30	0.23	13	0.44	12	0.32
Poblocka 1999		62	0.54	79	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.03	80	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.60	27	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.35	20	0.38	9	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.61	9	0.02	13	0.07	12	0.38	27	0.23	14	0.30
Rangell 2001		72	0.48	42	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.13	45	0.09	41	0.11
Richter 1976		87	0.38	61	0.00	88	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.02	83	0.03
Rosen 1989		25	0.63	44	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.20	46	0.08	33	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.47	65	0.00	80	0.05	62	0.05	71	0.03	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.44	77	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	34	0.18	50	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.47	53	0.00	60	0.06	50	0.06	26	0.31	31	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.47	28	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.11	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.49	54	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	27	0.25	42	0.11
Rossi 2007		84	0.41	55	0.00	69	0.04	64	0.04	21	0.31	36	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.61	34	0.00	47	0.04	67	0.04	11	0.39	34	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		53	0.56	76	0.00	35	0.06	43	0.11	29	0.31	27	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.68	21	0.01	33	0.06	32	0.22	20	0.42	15	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.55	8	0.02	58	0.06	52	0.06	65	0.04	59	0.05
Shebanova 2002		36	0.60	23	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	73	0.04	75	0.04
Smith 1975		15	0.66	24	0.00	7	0.13	6	0.51	19	0.35	8	0.42
Sokolov 2002		47	0.58	15	0.01	51	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.08	54	0.06
Sztompka 1959		20	0.65	69	0.00	22	0.05	18	0.31	51	0.07	29	0.15
Tomsic 1995		40	0.60	59	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	33	0.27	32	0.13
Uninsky 1932		77	0.45	52	0.00	83	0.04	63	0.04	49	0.06	61	0.05
Uninsky 1971		81	0.43	82	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	74	0.04	84	0.03
Wasowski 1980		39	0.60	22	0.00	52	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.05	66	0.04
Zak 1937		24	0.63	48	0.00	26	0.04	24	0.26	64	0.05	39	0.11
Zak 1951		42	0.59	30	0.00	27	0.06	27	0.25	65	0.05	40	0.11
Average		1	0.78	2	0.21	3	0.39	1	0.67	50	0.07	24	0.22
Random 1		91	-0.14	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.09	71	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	68	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.02	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	91	0.02

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).