Random 2

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

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).