Random 1

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		59	-0.04	60	0.00	67	0.02	67	0.02	89	0.01	81	0.01
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.00	56	0.00	33	0.09	25	0.34	88	0.02	20	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		40	-0.02	39	0.00	55	0.04	50	0.04	88	0.02	48	0.03
Bacha 2000		89	-0.10	43	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.01	72	0.01
Badura 1965		29	-0.01	10	0.03	25	0.07	28	0.30	86	0.02	21	0.08
Barbosa 1983		8	0.02	24	0.01	11	0.07	14	0.42	89	0.02	15	0.09
Biret 1990		45	-0.03	46	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.08	89	0.01	49	0.03
Blet 2003		21	0.00	2	0.08	3	0.10	32	0.26	88	0.02	30	0.07
Block 1995		14	0.01	13	0.03	7	0.08	3	0.51	88	0.02	10	0.10
Blumental 1952		76	-0.07	38	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.13	88	0.02	37	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		63	-0.04	68	0.00	79	0.02	72	0.02	89	0.01	85	0.01
Brailowsky 1960		90	-0.11	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	0.01
Bunin 1987		50	-0.03	77	0.00	71	0.02	79	0.02	89	0.02	66	0.02
Bunin 1987b		49	-0.03	90	0.00	66	0.03	65	0.03	89	0.02	60	0.02
Chiu 1999		58	-0.04	41	0.00	46	0.05	46	0.05	88	0.01	55	0.02
Cohen 1997		31	-0.01	12	0.03	26	0.09	27	0.31	89	0.01	36	0.06
Cortot 1951		1	0.05	4	0.06	4	0.10	1	0.53	87	0.02	12	0.10
Csalog 1996		65	-0.04	42	0.00	51	0.04	54	0.04	88	0.02	44	0.03
Czerny 1949		11	0.02	20	0.02	21	0.08	13	0.43	88	0.01	31	0.07
Czerny 1990		74	-0.06	36	0.00	53	0.04	56	0.04	90	0.01	68	0.02
Duchoud 2007		75	-0.07	58	0.00	75	0.02	76	0.02	90	0.01	83	0.01
Ezaki 2006		25	0.00	8	0.05	19	0.07	20	0.37	89	0.02	13	0.09
Falvay 1989		41	-0.02	18	0.02	18	0.10	24	0.34	89	0.01	33	0.06
Farrell 1958		79	-0.07	88	0.00	54	0.04	49	0.04	89	0.01	57	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		82	-0.07	30	0.01	68	0.02	70	0.02	90	0.01	80	0.01
Fliere 1977		26	0.00	71	0.00	34	0.08	34	0.25	88	0.02	25	0.07
Fou 1978		33	-0.01	72	0.00	65	0.03	62	0.03	89	0.02	58	0.02
Francois 1956		69	-0.05	80	0.00	81	0.02	78	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Friedman 1923		71	-0.06	73	0.00	73	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	71	0.02
Friedman 1923b		73	-0.06	75	0.00	70	0.02	68	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.02
Friedman 1930		86	-0.08	87	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.01	78	0.01
Garcia 2007		80	-0.07	79	0.00	52	0.05	48	0.05	88	0.01	65	0.02
Garcia 2007b		46	-0.03	51	0.00	45	0.04	53	0.04	88	0.01	70	0.02
Gierzod 1998		52	-0.03	37	0.00	83	0.02	77	0.02	90	0.01	82	0.01
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.02	32	0.01	10	0.08	17	0.41	88	0.02	16	0.09
Groot 1988		72	-0.06	82	0.00	59	0.04	55	0.04	88	0.02	50	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		62	-0.04	49	0.00	78	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Hatto 1993		53	-0.03	84	0.00	62	0.03	64	0.03	89	0.02	69	0.02
Hatto 1997		70	-0.05	44	0.00	85	0.02	75	0.02	89	0.01	79	0.01
Horowitz 1949		88	-0.09	69	0.00	87	0.01	88	0.01	89	0.01	76	0.01
Indjic 1988		38	-0.02	48	0.00	50	0.04	52	0.04	89	0.02	43	0.03
Kapell 1951		39	-0.02	23	0.01	32	0.07	31	0.26	88	0.02	28	0.07
Kissin 1993		4	0.03	6	0.06	5	0.08	4	0.49	86	0.02	9	0.10
Kushner 1989		13	0.01	7	0.05	14	0.06	7	0.48	88	0.02	6	0.10
Luisada 1991		5	0.03	27	0.01	28	0.06	33	0.25	88	0.02	24	0.07
Lushtak 2004		83	-0.08	64	0.00	74	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.01	84	0.01
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.00	45	0.00	30	0.08	26	0.31	89	0.01	35	0.06
Magaloff 1978		81	-0.07	85	0.00	77	0.02	69	0.02	90	0.01	74	0.01
Magin 1975		32	-0.01	78	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.24	88	0.02	27	0.07
Michalowski 1933		15	0.00	11	0.03	13	0.06	12	0.46	85	0.03	2	0.12
Milkina 1970		17	0.00	35	0.00	24	0.09	15	0.42	89	0.02	14	0.09
Mohovich 1999		78	-0.07	40	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.01	86	0.01
Moravec 1969		43	-0.03	14	0.03	17	0.09	11	0.46	89	0.02	4	0.10
Morozova 2008		57	-0.04	59	0.00	64	0.03	60	0.03	90	0.01	64	0.02
Neighaus 1950		6	0.02	19	0.02	8	0.07	8	0.47	84	0.03	3	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		77	-0.07	74	0.00	82	0.02	81	0.02	89	0.01	75	0.01
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.00	62	0.00	37	0.08	37	0.17	89	0.01	39	0.04
Osinska 1989		47	-0.03	55	0.00	48	0.04	51	0.04	90	0.01	53	0.02
Pachmann 1927		54	-0.03	67	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	89	0.01	62	0.02
Paderewski 1930		19	0.00	21	0.01	9	0.07	23	0.34	87	0.02	19	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		42	-0.03	81	0.00	69	0.02	73	0.02	89	0.02	52	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		48	-0.03	28	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.07	89	0.02	38	0.04
Poblocka 1999		67	-0.05	76	0.00	60	0.03	63	0.03	89	0.02	54	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	-0.05	57	0.00	58	0.04	57	0.04	89	0.01	56	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		20	0.00	61	0.00	29	0.07	21	0.36	88	0.02	18	0.08
Rangell 2001		84	-0.08	47	0.00	76	0.02	80	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Richter 1976		44	-0.03	34	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.10	89	0.01	42	0.03
Rosen 1989		24	0.00	22	0.01	23	0.08	22	0.35	88	0.02	22	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		36	-0.01	70	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.28	88	0.02	32	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		35	-0.01	50	0.00	35	0.08	36	0.23	89	0.02	29	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		28	0.00	31	0.01	27	0.08	29	0.29	89	0.02	23	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		30	-0.01	26	0.01	22	0.09	18	0.41	88	0.02	17	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		7	0.02	3	0.06	6	0.08	2	0.51	89	0.02	11	0.10
Rossi 2007		61	-0.04	29	0.01	40	0.04	40	0.11	88	0.01	41	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		3	0.04	5	0.06	2	0.09	9	0.47	87	0.02	5	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		85	-0.08	83	0.00	80	0.02	74	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		87	-0.09	65	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.01
Schilhawsky 1960		34	-0.01	66	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.11	88	0.01	45	0.03
Shebanova 2002		55	-0.03	54	0.00	47	0.05	45	0.05	88	0.02	47	0.03
Smith 1975		18	0.00	25	0.01	20	0.09	16	0.42	88	0.01	34	0.06
Sokolov 2002		2	0.04	1	0.08	1	0.08	6	0.49	89	0.01	26	0.07
Sztompka 1959		10	0.02	16	0.03	15	0.08	10	0.47	88	0.02	8	0.10
Tomsic 1995		22	0.00	9	0.04	16	0.08	5	0.49	87	0.02	7	0.10
Uninsky 1932		51	-0.03	17	0.02	42	0.04	42	0.09	90	0.01	46	0.03
Uninsky 1971		37	-0.02	53	0.00	57	0.04	59	0.04	89	0.01	63	0.02
Wasowski 1980		60	-0.04	86	0.00	72	0.02	71	0.02	89	0.02	51	0.02
Zak 1937		66	-0.04	52	0.00	63	0.03	66	0.03	89	0.01	59	0.02
Zak 1951		64	-0.04	63	0.00	61	0.03	61	0.03	89	0.01	61	0.02
Random 1		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 2		56	-0.04	33	0.01	56	0.04	58	0.04	54	0.05	40	0.04
Random 3		12	0.01	15	0.03	12	0.08	19	0.37	8	0.48	1	0.42

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).