Chiu 1999

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		33	0.40	26	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	34	0.22	49	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.32	43	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.43	25	0.00	37	0.05	35	0.17	35	0.25	32	0.21
Bacha 2000		65	0.32	10	0.02	25	0.06	44	0.11	33	0.21	39	0.15
Badura 1965		70	0.31	52	0.00	63	0.06	47	0.06	30	0.21	47	0.11
Barbosa 1983		15	0.46	63	0.00	11	0.11	16	0.48	25	0.37	17	0.42
Biret 1990		27	0.41	64	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.24	26	0.43	23	0.32
Blet 2003		48	0.37	56	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	42	0.15	53	0.09
Block 1995		51	0.36	29	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.06	47	0.07	60	0.06
Blumental 1952		42	0.38	76	0.00	41	0.05	37	0.16	36	0.20	36	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.31	84	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	69	0.04	73	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.27	68	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	54	0.06	62	0.05
Bunin 1987		53	0.35	27	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.14	29	0.30	34	0.20
Bunin 1987b		47	0.37	21	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.27	25	0.41	21	0.33
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		68	0.31	32	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	49	0.06	67	0.05
Cortot 1951		83	0.24	40	0.00	87	0.04	77	0.04	61	0.05	79	0.04
Csalog 1996		16	0.45	30	0.00	15	0.13	12	0.52	3	0.61	6	0.56
Czerny 1949		79	0.27	59	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	71	0.04	86	0.03
Czerny 1990		5	0.48	9	0.03	5	0.12	7	0.58	25	0.52	7	0.55
Duchoud 2007		18	0.45	7	0.03	7	0.12	5	0.58	1	0.73	3	0.65
Ezaki 2006		61	0.33	86	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	75	0.04	68	0.04
Falvay 1989		21	0.44	67	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.28	42	0.11	35	0.18
Farrell 1958		41	0.38	50	0.00	51	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.26	48	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		80	0.25	83	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	44	0.18	57	0.07
Fliere 1977		2	0.53	2	0.13	2	0.23	4	0.64	16	0.51	5	0.57
Fou 1978		20	0.44	60	0.00	33	0.05	24	0.27	38	0.24	30	0.25
Francois 1956		82	0.24	87	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		35	0.39	15	0.01	31	0.05	32	0.21	27	0.39	26	0.29
Friedman 1923b		38	0.38	8	0.03	32	0.06	34	0.17	26	0.42	27	0.27
Friedman 1930		13	0.46	17	0.01	17	0.09	14	0.50	12	0.57	9	0.53
Garcia 2007		71	0.31	38	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	28	0.30	45	0.12
Garcia 2007b		44	0.38	46	0.00	34	0.05	31	0.22	20	0.47	24	0.32
Gierzod 1998		60	0.33	55	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	54	0.06	66	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.34	42	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	64	0.04	76	0.04
Groot 1988		28	0.41	6	0.03	10	0.12	10	0.54	26	0.36	16	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.47	13	0.01	27	0.06	29	0.23	53	0.06	46	0.12
Hatto 1993		9	0.47	47	0.00	13	0.14	8	0.55	21	0.41	13	0.47
Hatto 1997		24	0.41	51	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.17	41	0.11	43	0.14
Horowitz 1949		46	0.37	20	0.00	36	0.05	41	0.13	16	0.53	29	0.26
Indjic 1988		17	0.45	48	0.00	14	0.10	13	0.51	26	0.39	14	0.45
Kapell 1951		7	0.47	3	0.09	4	0.16	15	0.50	18	0.39	15	0.44
Kissin 1993		34	0.39	49	0.00	52	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.18	56	0.08
Kushner 1989		19	0.45	18	0.01	26	0.06	30	0.22	44	0.10	40	0.15
Luisada 1991		36	0.39	19	0.01	43	0.06	42	0.13	56	0.06	51	0.09
Lushtak 2004		39	0.38	54	0.00	64	0.05	50	0.05	38	0.10	58	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.38	61	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	66	0.05	64	0.05
Magaloff 1978		30	0.40	41	0.00	18	0.11	18	0.42	24	0.38	19	0.40
Magin 1975		37	0.39	22	0.00	38	0.05	33	0.18	37	0.23	33	0.20
Michalowski 1933		74	0.30	39	0.00	29	0.06	38	0.15	16	0.43	31	0.25
Milkina 1970		45	0.38	70	0.00	44	0.07	40	0.14	40	0.19	38	0.16
Mohovich 1999		59	0.34	65	0.00	68	0.05	53	0.05	79	0.04	74	0.04
Moravec 1969		29	0.41	5	0.05	9	0.13	20	0.34	32	0.30	22	0.32
Morozova 2008		3	0.50	4	0.06	3	0.29	2	0.69	3	0.63	2	0.66
Neighaus 1950		55	0.35	24	0.00	56	0.04	73	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.32	73	0.00	55	0.04	74	0.04	37	0.20	52	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.48	23	0.00	12	0.11	9	0.55	11	0.48	10	0.51
Osinska 1989		32	0.40	44	0.00	23	0.06	26	0.25	44	0.11	37	0.17
Pachmann 1927		54	0.35	36	0.00	62	0.06	49	0.06	32	0.28	44	0.13
Paderewski 1930		84	0.23	89	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		67	0.32	53	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.06	61	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		40	0.38	45	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.40	41	0.14
Poblocka 1999		26	0.41	57	0.00	30	0.05	27	0.25	35	0.28	28	0.26
Rabcewiczowa 1932		75	0.29	80	0.00	69	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.06	59	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		50	0.36	33	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.32	27	0.35	20	0.33
Rangell 2001		58	0.34	34	0.00	50	0.04	66	0.04	41	0.19	55	0.09
Richter 1976		4	0.50	14	0.01	16	0.12	11	0.52	26	0.48	11	0.50
Rosen 1989		8	0.47	12	0.02	8	0.12	6	0.58	8	0.51	8	0.54
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.28	81	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.21	90	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	60	0.05	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.21	82	0.00	86	0.04	78	0.04	58	0.04	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		66	0.32	62	0.00	53	0.04	75	0.04	28	0.26	50	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.19	77	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	50	0.05	77	0.04
Rossi 2007		81	0.25	58	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	46	0.07	63	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.35	37	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.04	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.33	78	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	70	0.04	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.42	79	0.00	40	0.05	43	0.12	52	0.07	54	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.40	75	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	12	0.42	42	0.14
Shebanova 2002		1	0.54	1	0.38	1	0.38	1	0.77	6	0.69	1	0.73
Smith 1975		73	0.30	88	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	83	0.03
Sokolov 2002		72	0.30	31	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.03	82	0.03
Sztompka 1959		25	0.41	28	0.00	20	0.10	22	0.30	34	0.32	25	0.31
Tomsic 1995		76	0.29	69	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04	70	0.04
Uninsky 1932		52	0.36	74	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04	72	0.04
Uninsky 1971		49	0.36	71	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	63	0.05	65	0.05
Wasowski 1980		12	0.46	11	0.02	6	0.12	3	0.65	13	0.55	4	0.60
Zak 1937		11	0.46	35	0.00	19	0.13	17	0.47	14	0.50	12	0.48
Zak 1951		14	0.46	16	0.01	21	0.09	19	0.38	16	0.44	18	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.04	85	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	46	0.05	89	0.02
Random 2		88	-0.01	66	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	62	0.05	88	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.02	72	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	41	0.13	75	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).