Garcia 2007b

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		53	0.40	20	0.00	28	0.05	24	0.21	76	0.03	37	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.50	81	0.00	14	0.07	22	0.22	37	0.13	11	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		12	0.50	84	0.00	42	0.04	36	0.13	68	0.03	48	0.06
Bacha 2000		50	0.41	8	0.01	37	0.04	43	0.09	55	0.05	39	0.07
Badura 1965		75	0.30	52	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Barbosa 1983		85	0.23	86	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	79	0.03
Biret 1990		7	0.53	69	0.00	12	0.08	9	0.34	69	0.05	17	0.13
Blet 2003		52	0.40	13	0.01	48	0.05	52	0.05	73	0.03	64	0.04
Block 1995		69	0.35	37	0.00	21	0.05	31	0.17	46	0.05	32	0.09
Blumental 1952		22	0.47	48	0.00	20	0.05	18	0.25	25	0.21	6	0.23
Boshniakovich 1969		11	0.50	32	0.00	41	0.04	32	0.15	64	0.04	38	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.48	23	0.00	25	0.05	35	0.13	59	0.05	36	0.08
Bunin 1987		57	0.39	53	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04	67	0.04
Bunin 1987b		58	0.38	24	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.04	61	0.04
Chiu 1999		42	0.43	41	0.00	72	0.05	50	0.05	75	0.03	57	0.04
Cohen 1997		78	0.29	42	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	50	0.06	66	0.04
Cortot 1951		32	0.45	44	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.17	39	0.17	12	0.17
Csalog 1996		88	0.16	28	0.00	88	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Czerny 1949		55	0.39	60	0.00	19	0.05	17	0.25	49	0.06	19	0.12
Czerny 1990		56	0.39	83	0.00	59	0.05	53	0.05	81	0.03	69	0.04
Duchoud 2007		45	0.42	18	0.01	54	0.03	74	0.03	56	0.04	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		43	0.42	90	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03
Falvay 1989		82	0.26	51	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.04	75	0.03
Farrell 1958		10	0.51	2	0.12	2	0.23	5	0.51	14	0.36	2	0.43
Ferenczy 1958		47	0.41	54	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.14	35	0.16	14	0.15
Fliere 1977		19	0.49	72	0.00	34	0.06	19	0.24	84	0.03	35	0.08
Fou 1978		24	0.46	27	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.04	59	0.04
Francois 1956		76	0.30	63	0.00	60	0.05	49	0.05	82	0.03	70	0.04
Friedman 1923		34	0.45	36	0.00	55	0.03	75	0.03	31	0.27	33	0.09
Friedman 1923b		37	0.44	25	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	33	0.26	21	0.12
Friedman 1930		27	0.46	61	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.12	42	0.07
Garcia 2007		1	0.72	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.81	1	0.84	1	0.82
Garcia 2007b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gierzod 1998		17	0.49	55	0.00	15	0.07	8	0.38	59	0.04	20	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.45	47	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	62	0.04	68	0.04
Groot 1988		74	0.32	35	0.00	22	0.06	28	0.18	83	0.03	43	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.49	6	0.01	44	0.05	41	0.10	74	0.03	55	0.05
Hatto 1993		23	0.46	78	0.00	43	0.06	34	0.14	57	0.04	44	0.07
Hatto 1997		31	0.45	77	0.00	45	0.05	42	0.10	79	0.03	53	0.05
Horowitz 1949		54	0.40	34	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	57	0.04	62	0.04
Indjic 1988		30	0.45	82	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	74	0.03	52	0.05
Kapell 1951		35	0.45	39	0.00	10	0.06	12	0.31	54	0.05	18	0.12
Kissin 1993		68	0.36	74	0.00	73	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.03	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		26	0.46	15	0.01	16	0.07	15	0.26	61	0.05	22	0.11
Luisada 1991		2	0.58	17	0.01	5	0.11	7	0.39	35	0.20	5	0.28
Lushtak 2004		36	0.44	87	0.00	51	0.04	59	0.04	82	0.03	85	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		62	0.37	64	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.03	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		67	0.36	68	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.03	74	0.03
Magin 1975		13	0.50	7	0.01	8	0.11	13	0.27	39	0.14	7	0.19
Michalowski 1933		3	0.55	22	0.00	4	0.16	6	0.44	25	0.36	3	0.40
Milkina 1970		64	0.37	89	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	78	0.04	60	0.04
Mohovich 1999		41	0.43	71	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	78	0.03	65	0.04
Moravec 1969		86	0.22	50	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	51	0.04	72	0.03
Morozova 2008		9	0.52	73	0.00	17	0.06	26	0.19	58	0.04	30	0.09
Neighaus 1950		4	0.54	16	0.01	7	0.12	4	0.54	48	0.07	9	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.33	26	0.00	29	0.05	21	0.22	39	0.14	10	0.18
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.49	57	0.00	35	0.05	27	0.19	61	0.04	29	0.09
Osinska 1989		39	0.43	5	0.01	18	0.05	20	0.22	58	0.04	28	0.09
Pachmann 1927		84	0.24	3	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		59	0.38	56	0.00	39	0.05	45	0.09	42	0.11	25	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.45	70	0.00	9	0.06	11	0.32	50	0.05	15	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		40	0.43	10	0.01	58	0.05	56	0.05	55	0.05	51	0.05
Poblocka 1999		49	0.41	65	0.00	38	0.04	38	0.13	69	0.04	40	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		25	0.46	88	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	71	0.03	58	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.42	46	0.00	31	0.05	44	0.09	71	0.04	45	0.06
Rangell 2001		72	0.33	43	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	86	0.03
Richter 1976		83	0.26	40	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	58	0.05	63	0.04
Rosen 1989		8	0.53	14	0.01	13	0.07	10	0.34	43	0.11	8	0.19
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.29	49	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.34	67	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.37	30	0.00	71	0.05	57	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.27	79	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.33	76	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	45	0.08	49	0.06
Rossi 2007		61	0.38	31	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.06	50	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.37	9	0.01	68	0.04	62	0.04	35	0.23	24	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.21	33	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		80	0.27	91	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	68	0.04	82	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		51	0.40	12	0.01	23	0.07	25	0.20	51	0.06	23	0.11
Shebanova 2002		29	0.45	45	0.00	11	0.06	16	0.25	81	0.03	31	0.09
Smith 1975		18	0.49	75	0.00	40	0.03	39	0.12	81	0.03	46	0.06
Sokolov 2002		48	0.41	80	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	68	0.03	73	0.03
Sztompka 1959		6	0.54	11	0.01	3	0.16	3	0.55	39	0.21	4	0.34
Tomsic 1995		79	0.29	66	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	71	0.04	77	0.03
Uninsky 1932		15	0.49	19	0.00	33	0.06	14	0.26	47	0.07	16	0.13
Uninsky 1971		46	0.42	21	0.00	30	0.05	23	0.22	60	0.05	26	0.10
Wasowski 1980		38	0.44	38	0.00	24	0.06	29	0.18	74	0.04	34	0.08
Zak 1937		60	0.38	4	0.01	26	0.05	37	0.13	82	0.03	47	0.06
Zak 1951		66	0.36	29	0.00	27	0.05	40	0.11	75	0.04	41	0.07
Average		5	0.54	85	0.00	6	0.16	2	0.55	75	0.04	13	0.15
Random 1		90	-0.08	59	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	10	0.47	27	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.18	58	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.01	62	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	19	0.29	54	0.05

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).