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		52	0.29	28	0.00	57	0.04	56	0.04	81	0.03	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		85	0.12	81	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	87	0.02	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.35	66	0.00	51	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.05	62	0.04
Bacha 2000		63	0.26	63	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04	50	0.04
Badura 1965		81	0.17	85	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		82	0.17	78	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	75	0.03
Biret 1990		50	0.30	20	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.12	47	0.07	37	0.09
Blet 2003		61	0.27	15	0.01	53	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	57	0.04
Block 1995		65	0.26	42	0.00	58	0.04	55	0.04	80	0.03	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		80	0.17	82	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.38	58	0.00	22	0.08	22	0.39	52	0.06	27	0.15
Brailowsky 1960		87	0.08	89	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Bunin 1987		62	0.26	52	0.00	56	0.05	47	0.05	69	0.04	63	0.04
Bunin 1987b		67	0.26	54	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.03	73	0.03
Chiu 1999		14	0.38	34	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.40	54	0.05	28	0.14
Cohen 1997		33	0.33	22	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.20	41	0.22	14	0.21
Cortot 1951		71	0.24	47	0.00	64	0.04	53	0.04	47	0.07	48	0.05
Csalog 1996		20	0.37	27	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.37	55	0.06	26	0.15
Czerny 1949		69	0.25	75	0.00	65	0.04	52	0.04	61	0.05	59	0.04
Czerny 1990		41	0.32	79	0.00	45	0.05	49	0.05	76	0.04	64	0.04
Duchoud 2007		9	0.40	12	0.01	10	0.12	4	0.58	11	0.54	5	0.56
Ezaki 2006		77	0.22	46	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03	66	0.03
Falvay 1989		32	0.33	53	0.00	39	0.05	40	0.13	69	0.05	39	0.08
Farrell 1958		54	0.29	68	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.18	66	0.04	41	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		79	0.18	62	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.04	77	0.03
Fliere 1977		7	0.42	9	0.03	11	0.15	11	0.54	76	0.04	24	0.15
Fou 1978		36	0.32	40	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	81	0.03	53	0.04
Francois 1956		53	0.29	35	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.24	32	0.20	13	0.22
Friedman 1923		58	0.27	41	0.00	62	0.05	46	0.05	64	0.05	49	0.05
Friedman 1923b		55	0.28	39	0.00	61	0.04	54	0.04	54	0.06	47	0.05
Friedman 1930		34	0.33	24	0.00	31	0.07	35	0.19	63	0.05	34	0.10
Garcia 2007		5	0.42	2	0.16	2	0.31	3	0.69	5	0.65	2	0.67
Garcia 2007b		4	0.43	1	0.39	1	0.39	1	0.71	6	0.67	1	0.69
Gierzod 1998		48	0.30	13	0.01	41	0.05	39	0.13	74	0.04	44	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		56	0.28	57	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	77	0.03	84	0.03
Groot 1988		40	0.32	51	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.19	78	0.04	38	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.39	55	0.00	14	0.15	10	0.54	74	0.05	22	0.16
Hatto 1993		18	0.37	21	0.00	9	0.16	6	0.58	47	0.08	12	0.22
Hatto 1997		26	0.35	61	0.00	20	0.11	18	0.46	64	0.04	29	0.14
Horowitz 1949		51	0.29	56	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.04
Indjic 1988		23	0.36	71	0.00	13	0.13	13	0.54	63	0.05	21	0.16
Kapell 1951		19	0.37	17	0.00	16	0.10	16	0.50	60	0.05	18	0.16
Kissin 1993		28	0.34	86	0.00	23	0.09	26	0.34	47	0.08	20	0.16
Kushner 1989		16	0.38	8	0.03	8	0.13	5	0.58	53	0.06	16	0.19
Luisada 1991		64	0.26	72	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.04	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		57	0.28	36	0.00	68	0.06	45	0.06	79	0.03	60	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		11	0.39	10	0.02	15	0.16	14	0.53	51	0.06	17	0.18
Magaloff 1978		24	0.35	18	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.39	63	0.04	30	0.12
Magin 1975		35	0.32	33	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.14	62	0.05	40	0.08
Michalowski 1933		44	0.31	50	0.00	47	0.04	60	0.04	36	0.21	35	0.09
Milkina 1970		60	0.27	7	0.03	6	0.11	20	0.44	45	0.09	15	0.20
Mohovich 1999		70	0.24	76	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	88	0.02	83	0.03
Moravec 1969		47	0.30	69	0.00	59	0.05	48	0.05	69	0.04	51	0.04
Morozova 2008		45	0.30	38	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.32	70	0.04	32	0.11
Neighaus 1950		27	0.34	30	0.00	38	0.05	41	0.13	70	0.04	45	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.22	45	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.36	16	0.00	7	0.12	15	0.52	52	0.05	19	0.16
Osinska 1989		8	0.41	37	0.00	17	0.12	12	0.54	43	0.12	9	0.25
Pachmann 1927		2	0.45	4	0.06	4	0.15	7	0.58	9	0.60	3	0.59
Paderewski 1930		15	0.38	5	0.05	12	0.13	8	0.55	12	0.59	4	0.57
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.34	70	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	64	0.05	52	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Poblocka 1999		76	0.22	90	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		49	0.30	48	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.03	72	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		72	0.23	25	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.10	83	0.03	46	0.05
Rangell 2001		43	0.31	73	0.00	67	0.05	50	0.05	76	0.03	65	0.04
Richter 1976		6	0.42	11	0.01	19	0.11	19	0.45	44	0.13	10	0.24
Rosen 1989		1	0.46	3	0.07	5	0.17	9	0.55	42	0.13	8	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.22	74	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.10	87	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.16	84	0.00	85	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.22	77	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.17	80	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		37	0.32	23	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.17	13	0.47	7	0.28
Rubinstein 1939		73	0.23	26	0.00	46	0.04	57	0.04	80	0.03	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.32	44	0.00	28	0.07	29	0.29	62	0.04	33	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		29	0.34	49	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.24	82	0.03	42	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.27	59	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04
Shebanova 2002		3	0.44	6	0.04	3	0.15	2	0.69	42	0.17	6	0.34
Smith 1975		66	0.26	65	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	69	0.03
Sokolov 2002		46	0.30	19	0.00	25	0.08	33	0.20	49	0.06	31	0.11
Sztompka 1959		13	0.39	43	0.00	27	0.07	24	0.37	53	0.06	25	0.15
Tomsic 1995		39	0.32	32	0.00	49	0.04	66	0.04	67	0.04	55	0.04
Uninsky 1932		21	0.37	31	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.34	40	0.14	11	0.22
Uninsky 1971		68	0.25	88	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.04	74	0.03
Wasowski 1980		12	0.39	14	0.01	18	0.11	17	0.48	71	0.05	23	0.15
Zak 1937		30	0.34	29	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.11	66	0.04	43	0.07
Zak 1951		42	0.32	60	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.04
Random 1		89	-0.03	64	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	44	0.07	61	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.06	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		88	0.00	67	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	13	0.41	36	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).