Gornostaeva 1994

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		17	0.69	5	0.04	7	0.09	16	0.44	34	0.26	23	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.65	24	0.01	34	0.08	32	0.26	23	0.28	27	0.27
Ashkenazy 1981		57	0.55	74	0.00	55	0.05	47	0.05	76	0.03	68	0.04
Bacha 2000		55	0.55	20	0.01	56	0.04	60	0.04	42	0.16	49	0.08
Badura 1965		65	0.53	70	0.00	62	0.03	66	0.03	41	0.16	54	0.07
Barbosa 1983		76	0.47	35	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	35	0.20	40	0.13
Biret 1990		25	0.65	40	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.16	68	0.05	48	0.09
Blet 2003		46	0.60	25	0.01	51	0.06	46	0.06	40	0.12	52	0.08
Block 1995		33	0.64	68	0.00	28	0.07	31	0.27	23	0.31	26	0.29
Blumental 1952		83	0.38	39	0.00	72	0.03	68	0.03	62	0.04	85	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		11	0.72	61	0.00	19	0.07	24	0.31	17	0.41	20	0.36
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.67	34	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.14	30	0.29	35	0.20
Bunin 1987		71	0.50	76	0.00	67	0.02	84	0.02	47	0.06	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		73	0.49	66	0.00	68	0.04	58	0.04	47	0.06	58	0.05
Chiu 1999		77	0.47	54	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.04	73	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.28	64	0.00	88	0.04	61	0.04	58	0.04	69	0.04
Cortot 1951		54	0.56	63	0.00	74	0.02	85	0.02	70	0.04	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		80	0.42	65	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1949		18	0.68	12	0.01	17	0.10	21	0.36	40	0.15	30	0.23
Czerny 1990		14	0.71	48	0.00	30	0.08	14	0.46	37	0.16	28	0.27
Duchoud 2007		51	0.57	19	0.01	43	0.05	43	0.10	37	0.17	42	0.13
Ezaki 2006		12	0.72	67	0.00	15	0.09	7	0.53	21	0.34	13	0.42
Falvay 1989		38	0.63	11	0.01	35	0.07	41	0.14	36	0.28	36	0.20
Farrell 1958		41	0.61	78	0.00	46	0.04	55	0.04	47	0.06	57	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.54	52	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	82	0.03
Fliere 1977		7	0.76	18	0.01	12	0.10	4	0.59	37	0.24	18	0.38
Fou 1978		40	0.61	13	0.01	9	0.09	12	0.50	24	0.33	14	0.41
Francois 1956		15	0.71	7	0.02	10	0.10	13	0.48	12	0.49	9	0.48
Friedman 1923		84	0.37	82	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	36	0.22	53	0.08
Friedman 1923b		85	0.37	87	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	38	0.22	47	0.09
Friedman 1930		61	0.54	72	0.00	49	0.04	57	0.04	19	0.41	41	0.13
Garcia 2007		74	0.49	84	0.00	71	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		78	0.45	53	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.05	70	0.04
Gierzod 1998		13	0.72	56	0.00	31	0.11	22	0.34	43	0.14	33	0.22
Gornostaeva 1994		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Groot 1988		31	0.65	33	0.00	16	0.09	15	0.45	30	0.37	15	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		49	0.59	59	0.00	23	0.07	27	0.29	40	0.12	38	0.19
Hatto 1993		87	0.33	90	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.04	87	0.03
Hatto 1997		81	0.39	83	0.00	81	0.03	72	0.03	65	0.04	81	0.03
Horowitz 1949		60	0.54	86	0.00	80	0.03	70	0.03	61	0.04	76	0.03
Indjic 1988		86	0.35	91	0.00	85	0.03	64	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03
Kapell 1951		47	0.60	51	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	62	0.04	62	0.04
Kissin 1993		27	0.65	8	0.01	20	0.07	29	0.28	38	0.15	37	0.20
Kushner 1989		6	0.76	28	0.01	8	0.09	8	0.53	20	0.44	7	0.48
Luisada 1991		36	0.63	58	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.19	44	0.08	43	0.12
Lushtak 2004		72	0.50	80	0.00	63	0.04	56	0.04	70	0.03	84	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.77	23	0.01	4	0.23	11	0.51	7	0.49	6	0.50
Magaloff 1978		8	0.74	27	0.01	13	0.10	9	0.53	6	0.49	3	0.51
Magin 1975		22	0.66	22	0.01	18	0.07	17	0.39	21	0.29	22	0.34
Michalowski 1933		69	0.53	44	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	48	0.08	55	0.06
Milkina 1970		16	0.70	50	0.00	14	0.08	20	0.38	24	0.33	21	0.35
Mohovich 1999		10	0.73	3	0.08	5	0.15	10	0.53	21	0.43	8	0.48
Moravec 1969		62	0.54	45	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.03
Morozova 2008		53	0.56	43	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	67	0.04	65	0.04
Neighaus 1950		9	0.73	29	0.01	6	0.10	6	0.56	18	0.34	11	0.44
Niedzielski 1931		50	0.57	81	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.03	74	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		29	0.65	14	0.01	39	0.06	37	0.17	63	0.04	51	0.08
Osinska 1989		5	0.77	10	0.01	11	0.11	5	0.57	15	0.44	5	0.50
Pachmann 1927		63	0.54	49	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		45	0.60	77	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	49	0.04	63	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.61	17	0.01	27	0.06	34	0.24	31	0.17	34	0.20
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.57	60	0.00	64	0.03	71	0.03	51	0.06	60	0.04
Poblocka 1999		43	0.60	75	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	66	0.04	72	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		28	0.65	26	0.01	38	0.06	38	0.16	23	0.31	31	0.22
Rachmaninoff 1923		48	0.59	30	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.20	39	0.13	39	0.16
Rangell 2001		35	0.64	55	0.00	22	0.06	28	0.29	19	0.37	25	0.33
Richter 1976		75	0.47	79	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	68	0.03	89	0.02
Rosen 1989		2	0.78	1	0.31	1	0.30	3	0.70	2	0.64	1	0.67
Rosenthal 1930		19	0.67	6	0.02	32	0.08	25	0.30	7	0.62	12	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		32	0.65	47	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.32	8	0.61	10	0.44
Rosenthal 1931b		37	0.63	37	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.29	8	0.54	16	0.40
Rosenthal 1931c		20	0.67	36	0.00	25	0.12	18	0.39	5	0.67	4	0.51
Rosenthal 1931d		24	0.66	41	0.00	33	0.11	33	0.26	15	0.45	24	0.34
Rossi 2007		70	0.52	62	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.11	5	0.49	29	0.23
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.38	31	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	51	0.05	61	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		79	0.45	21	0.01	60	0.03	74	0.03	45	0.11	56	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.54	38	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	43	0.15	45	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.53	73	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	68	0.04	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		34	0.64	69	0.00	53	0.05	49	0.05	82	0.03	67	0.04
Smith 1975		3	0.78	4	0.06	3	0.26	2	0.71	3	0.61	2	0.66
Sokolov 2002		30	0.65	9	0.01	29	0.08	19	0.38	20	0.40	17	0.39
Sztompka 1959		23	0.66	16	0.01	21	0.06	30	0.27	41	0.18	32	0.22
Tomsic 1995		39	0.61	46	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	30	0.30	44	0.12
Uninsky 1932		66	0.53	42	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	54	0.06	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		68	0.53	57	0.00	77	0.03	65	0.03	65	0.05	64	0.04
Wasowski 1980		44	0.60	15	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.10	49	0.06	50	0.08
Zak 1937		56	0.55	71	0.00	61	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.04	75	0.03
Zak 1951		64	0.54	32	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	62	0.05	59	0.05
Average		1	0.80	2	0.22	2	0.28	1	0.78	37	0.17	19	0.36
Random 1		90	-0.13	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	63	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.20	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.01	89	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	15	0.37	46	0.09

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).