Shebanova 2002

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		11	0.74	56	0.00	15	0.10	14	0.50	19	0.42	14	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.52	82	0.00	77	0.08	46	0.08	48	0.05	66	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		15	0.70	39	0.00	14	0.10	12	0.51	13	0.47	11	0.49
Bacha 2000		29	0.65	86	0.00	27	0.09	23	0.32	7	0.50	19	0.40
Badura 1965		59	0.58	41	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.11	21	0.37	37	0.20
Barbosa 1983		73	0.52	55	0.00	59	0.03	86	0.03	26	0.26	56	0.09
Biret 1990		19	0.69	73	0.00	26	0.09	19	0.41	25	0.27	24	0.33
Blet 2003		32	0.65	77	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.05
Block 1995		60	0.57	53	0.00	71	0.05	49	0.05	26	0.27	50	0.12
Blumental 1952		71	0.53	51	0.00	56	0.04	67	0.04	36	0.15	61	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.70	30	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.34	14	0.51	18	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.65	31	0.00	50	0.04	69	0.04	27	0.33	51	0.11
Bunin 1987		78	0.46	32	0.00	79	0.05	51	0.05	70	0.04	85	0.04
Bunin 1987b		79	0.46	59	0.00	78	0.05	54	0.05	67	0.04	80	0.04
Chiu 1999		36	0.64	16	0.01	21	0.09	18	0.42	7	0.55	12	0.48
Cohen 1997		81	0.45	57	0.00	76	0.06	47	0.06	15	0.32	43	0.14
Cortot 1951		43	0.62	52	0.00	55	0.03	80	0.03	35	0.20	62	0.08
Csalog 1996		46	0.61	7	0.03	20	0.09	30	0.26	4	0.56	22	0.38
Czerny 1949		44	0.62	21	0.01	30	0.06	32	0.25	60	0.05	52	0.11
Czerny 1990		17	0.70	34	0.00	31	0.07	22	0.32	40	0.11	39	0.19
Duchoud 2007		54	0.60	18	0.01	41	0.08	35	0.18	32	0.31	34	0.24
Ezaki 2006		23	0.66	48	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	68	0.04	70	0.05
Falvay 1989		39	0.63	28	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	43	0.15	59	0.08
Farrell 1958		50	0.60	14	0.01	66	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.05	79	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		63	0.56	83	0.00	74	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.06	72	0.05
Fliere 1977		4	0.78	5	0.03	5	0.22	3	0.63	8	0.52	5	0.57
Fou 1978		20	0.68	67	0.00	13	0.09	15	0.47	15	0.41	16	0.44
Francois 1956		37	0.63	63	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.16	36	0.22	40	0.19
Friedman 1923		88	0.29	61	0.00	88	0.04	76	0.04	47	0.08	69	0.06
Friedman 1923b		87	0.29	69	0.00	87	0.04	75	0.04	47	0.07	73	0.05
Friedman 1930		85	0.39	65	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	50	0.06	83	0.04
Garcia 2007		69	0.53	87	0.00	73	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.17	57	0.09
Garcia 2007b		82	0.45	79	0.00	60	0.03	81	0.03	16	0.25	58	0.09
Gierzod 1998		3	0.79	4	0.06	3	0.18	5	0.61	6	0.59	4	0.60
Gornostaeva 1994		35	0.64	76	0.00	63	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.05	86	0.04
Groot 1988		25	0.65	49	0.00	46	0.04	65	0.04	34	0.27	54	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		67	0.54	64	0.00	58	0.04	68	0.04	68	0.03	89	0.03
Hatto 1993		70	0.53	45	0.00	18	0.10	27	0.30	16	0.36	25	0.33
Hatto 1997		65	0.54	42	0.00	25	0.08	31	0.26	28	0.22	33	0.24
Horowitz 1949		55	0.60	15	0.01	47	0.04	61	0.04	20	0.43	45	0.13
Indjic 1988		64	0.55	36	0.00	17	0.11	26	0.31	19	0.33	27	0.32
Kapell 1951		30	0.65	37	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.13	41	0.13	44	0.13
Kissin 1993		2	0.81	1	0.29	1	0.29	2	0.68	1	0.74	1	0.71
Kushner 1989		6	0.77	26	0.00	9	0.15	6	0.61	2	0.63	2	0.62
Luisada 1991		22	0.67	8	0.02	6	0.17	16	0.46	19	0.45	15	0.45
Lushtak 2004		24	0.66	22	0.01	32	0.07	28	0.28	37	0.15	38	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		45	0.62	25	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	63	0.04	81	0.04
Magaloff 1978		33	0.64	12	0.01	49	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.12	63	0.07
Magin 1975		48	0.61	66	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.31	29	0.22	31	0.26
Michalowski 1933		68	0.53	70	0.00	65	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.28	48	0.12
Milkina 1970		7	0.77	27	0.00	7	0.16	10	0.55	5	0.57	6	0.56
Mohovich 1999		14	0.70	24	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.21	39	0.16	41	0.18
Moravec 1969		62	0.57	62	0.00	62	0.03	83	0.03	29	0.33	53	0.10
Morozova 2008		40	0.63	19	0.01	22	0.08	20	0.35	18	0.31	23	0.33
Neighaus 1950		8	0.75	10	0.01	16	0.13	7	0.61	11	0.43	10	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.58	29	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.17	14	0.42	29	0.27
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.78	2	0.20	2	0.27	4	0.61	2	0.63	3	0.62
Osinska 1989		10	0.74	23	0.01	11	0.10	8	0.57	9	0.53	7	0.55
Pachmann 1927		57	0.58	50	0.00	75	0.05	53	0.05	21	0.31	47	0.12
Paderewski 1930		41	0.63	33	0.00	29	0.07	39	0.16	23	0.29	35	0.22
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.63	75	0.00	52	0.04	78	0.04	43	0.10	65	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		51	0.60	44	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.16	6	0.50	28	0.28
Poblocka 1999		9	0.75	3	0.12	10	0.17	9	0.56	7	0.52	9	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.58	90	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	57	0.04	78	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		76	0.47	71	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	77	0.03	76	0.04
Rangell 2001		52	0.60	17	0.01	37	0.06	36	0.18	14	0.42	30	0.27
Richter 1976		66	0.54	35	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	35	0.18	55	0.09
Rosen 1989		12	0.73	54	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.45	20	0.42	17	0.43
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.48	81	0.00	80	0.03	88	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.41	91	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.42	89	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	70	0.03	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.48	72	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.03	91	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.46	84	0.00	83	0.05	58	0.05	49	0.06	74	0.05
Rossi 2007		86	0.31	80	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		77	0.47	60	0.00	51	0.04	71	0.04	14	0.36	46	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		31	0.65	68	0.00	35	0.08	25	0.31	17	0.50	21	0.39
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.65	38	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.16	21	0.41	32	0.26
Schilhawsky 1960		47	0.61	40	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.13	41	0.22	42	0.17
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		28	0.65	88	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.04	77	0.04
Sokolov 2002		49	0.61	58	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.04	75	0.04
Sztompka 1959		21	0.67	13	0.01	34	0.07	34	0.20	38	0.22	36	0.21
Tomsic 1995		38	0.63	11	0.01	68	0.04	63	0.04	39	0.18	60	0.08
Uninsky 1932		61	0.57	43	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	45	0.11	64	0.07
Uninsky 1971		53	0.60	47	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	40	0.15	49	0.12
Wasowski 1980		34	0.64	20	0.01	23	0.07	29	0.26	10	0.39	26	0.32
Zak 1937		13	0.72	9	0.01	8	0.19	11	0.55	7	0.56	8	0.55
Zak 1951		18	0.70	46	0.00	12	0.09	13	0.50	15	0.42	13	0.46
Average		1	0.82	6	0.03	4	0.21	1	0.71	33	0.21	20	0.39
Random 1		91	-0.08	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	26	0.32	68	0.06
Random 2		90	-0.06	78	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	25	0.21	67	0.06
Random 3		89	0.00	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	36	0.15	84	0.04

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).