Pierdomenico 2008

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		36	0.54	84	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	57	0.04	45	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		53	0.46	56	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.02	75	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.54	28	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.36	83	0.03	37	0.10
Bacha 2000		59	0.43	23	0.00	53	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.06	48	0.06
Badura 1965		76	0.36	79	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	78	0.03	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		80	0.32	51	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04
Biret 1990		21	0.57	15	0.01	21	0.07	5	0.51	47	0.06	19	0.17
Blet 2003		61	0.42	85	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03
Block 1995		37	0.54	18	0.01	15	0.07	20	0.41	15	0.36	7	0.38
Blumental 1952		79	0.33	25	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	58	0.04	67	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.57	69	0.00	28	0.06	36	0.23	68	0.04	36	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.54	53	0.00	16	0.06	23	0.39	20	0.36	8	0.37
Bunin 1987		75	0.37	59	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	74	0.04	83	0.03
Bunin 1987b		74	0.37	72	0.00	86	0.04	65	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.04
Chiu 1999		47	0.48	30	0.00	38	0.08	35	0.23	51	0.05	31	0.11
Cohen 1997		86	0.22	24	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.04	82	0.03
Cortot 1951		65	0.41	14	0.01	71	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		78	0.34	74	0.00	67	0.03	69	0.03	73	0.04	74	0.03
Czerny 1949		50	0.47	44	0.00	49	0.09	48	0.09	51	0.06	44	0.07
Czerny 1990		14	0.59	48	0.00	29	0.06	21	0.41	65	0.04	24	0.13
Duchoud 2007		45	0.48	9	0.02	33	0.07	40	0.15	67	0.04	41	0.08
Ezaki 2006		17	0.59	88	0.00	24	0.07	29	0.36	79	0.03	33	0.10
Falvay 1989		6	0.63	7	0.04	5	0.16	2	0.54	14	0.48	1	0.51
Farrell 1958		31	0.55	11	0.02	17	0.06	13	0.44	30	0.23	10	0.32
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.35	63	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	80	0.03	88	0.02
Fliere 1977		11	0.61	65	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.37	72	0.03	30	0.11
Fou 1978		29	0.56	82	0.00	14	0.09	12	0.45	45	0.08	16	0.19
Francois 1956		16	0.59	6	0.06	3	0.16	4	0.51	24	0.35	5	0.42
Friedman 1923		88	0.14	52	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.15	45	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.04	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		81	0.32	70	0.00	77	0.02	86	0.02	75	0.04	78	0.03
Garcia 2007		56	0.45	42	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.04	58	0.05
Garcia 2007b		58	0.43	31	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05	59	0.05
Gierzod 1998		22	0.57	54	0.00	32	0.08	32	0.32	62	0.04	32	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.57	75	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	71	0.03	68	0.04
Groot 1988		7	0.63	2	0.17	2	0.18	7	0.49	20	0.45	2	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.54	13	0.02	19	0.07	26	0.37	57	0.04	29	0.12
Hatto 1993		84	0.28	62	0.00	75	0.03	70	0.03	67	0.04	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		82	0.30	61	0.00	70	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Horowitz 1949		43	0.51	32	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.14	62	0.04	42	0.07
Indjic 1988		85	0.28	78	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		46	0.48	37	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	80	0.03	61	0.04
Kissin 1993		3	0.65	12	0.02	10	0.12	9	0.46	40	0.14	13	0.25
Kushner 1989		1	0.66	1	0.17	1	0.17	1	0.62	26	0.33	3	0.45
Luisada 1991		28	0.56	80	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.26	71	0.04	34	0.10
Lushtak 2004		44	0.49	17	0.01	34	0.07	31	0.34	69	0.04	28	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		30	0.56	57	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	50	0.05	39	0.08
Magaloff 1978		15	0.59	8	0.03	6	0.12	11	0.45	20	0.36	6	0.40
Magin 1975		13	0.60	29	0.00	23	0.06	28	0.36	36	0.15	15	0.23
Michalowski 1933		73	0.37	27	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.06	55	0.05
Milkina 1970		19	0.59	60	0.00	12	0.11	16	0.43	38	0.15	12	0.25
Mohovich 1999		10	0.61	26	0.00	13	0.10	10	0.45	48	0.07	17	0.18
Moravec 1969		63	0.42	77	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	85	0.03	70	0.03
Morozova 2008		34	0.54	39	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.31	69	0.03	35	0.10
Neighaus 1950		18	0.59	10	0.02	11	0.10	14	0.44	68	0.04	25	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.41	67	0.00	42	0.05	45	0.10	63	0.03	53	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.57	5	0.07	7	0.10	17	0.42	52	0.05	23	0.14
Osinska 1989		9	0.61	20	0.01	18	0.07	18	0.42	47	0.05	22	0.14
Pachmann 1927		67	0.41	36	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	73	0.04	64	0.04
Paderewski 1930		40	0.52	33	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.17	52	0.04	40	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.51	35	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	74	0.03	49	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Poblocka 1999		49	0.47	76	0.00	61	0.07	50	0.07	79	0.03	51	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		41	0.51	19	0.01	50	0.10	46	0.10	73	0.03	54	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.47	86	0.00	36	0.08	39	0.16	66	0.04	38	0.08
Rangell 2001		5	0.63	3	0.11	4	0.15	8	0.47	16	0.39	4	0.43
Richter 1976		60	0.42	47	0.00	69	0.03	71	0.03	57	0.05	63	0.04
Rosen 1989		8	0.62	38	0.00	22	0.06	24	0.39	49	0.06	21	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.41	90	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	73	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		62	0.42	73	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	51	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.41	83	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.38	87	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		57	0.43	89	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	42	0.11	47	0.07
Rossi 2007		48	0.47	21	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.17	20	0.31	14	0.23
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.29	64	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.47	49	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	49	0.08	50	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.45	68	0.00	51	0.06	54	0.06	62	0.04	56	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.41	58	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03
Shebanova 2002		12	0.60	4	0.08	8	0.16	6	0.50	38	0.16	11	0.28
Smith 1975		4	0.63	43	0.00	20	0.07	30	0.34	67	0.04	26	0.12
Sokolov 2002		33	0.54	46	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	72	0.03	52	0.05
Sztompka 1959		39	0.53	16	0.01	48	0.09	47	0.09	63	0.05	43	0.07
Tomsic 1995		20	0.58	50	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.40	25	0.35	9	0.37
Uninsky 1932		70	0.39	40	0.00	78	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.04	80	0.03
Uninsky 1971		72	0.38	41	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.04	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		54	0.46	71	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.04	60	0.04
Zak 1937		27	0.56	55	0.00	30	0.07	19	0.42	53	0.06	20	0.16
Zak 1951		25	0.57	81	0.00	27	0.09	15	0.43	47	0.07	18	0.17
Average		2	0.65	22	0.00	9	0.12	3	0.52	79	0.03	27	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.20	66	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	35	0.15	57	0.05
Random 3		89	0.00	34	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	26	0.25	46	0.07

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).