Average

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		51	0.58	49	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	1	0.85	52	0.23
Anderszewski 2003		62	0.56	63	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	2	0.83	56	0.22
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.65	41	0.00	36	0.07	32	0.33	1	0.90	32	0.54
Bacha 2000		79	0.50	88	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	1	0.80	85	0.15
Badura 1965		76	0.51	58	0.00	66	0.04	77	0.04	1	0.86	68	0.19
Barbosa 1983		24	0.64	38	0.00	23	0.07	19	0.46	1	0.90	20	0.64
Biret 1990		47	0.59	40	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	1	0.87	63	0.21
Blet 2003		45	0.59	19	0.00	51	0.05	66	0.05	1	0.86	61	0.21
Block 1995		40	0.61	13	0.01	30	0.11	35	0.31	1	0.90	33	0.53
Blumental 1952		46	0.59	22	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	1	0.88	47	0.25
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.65	4	0.04	8	0.25	6	0.62	1	0.91	7	0.75
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.54	44	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	1	0.85	70	0.18
Bunin 1987		57	0.56	72	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	2	0.87	62	0.21
Bunin 1987b		63	0.56	78	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	2	0.86	51	0.23
Chiu 1999		19	0.65	74	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.33	1	0.90	31	0.54
Cohen 1997		75	0.51	62	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	1	0.84	75	0.18
Cortot 1951		81	0.46	36	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	1	0.79	88	0.15
Csalog 1996		53	0.58	48	0.00	62	0.07	49	0.07	1	0.84	49	0.24
Czerny 1949		70	0.53	50	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	3	0.83	74	0.18
Czerny 1990		21	0.65	10	0.01	15	0.08	15	0.54	1	0.90	15	0.70
Duchoud 2007		77	0.51	81	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	1	0.82	82	0.16
Ezaki 2006		36	0.62	23	0.00	32	0.08	37	0.26	1	0.87	36	0.48
Falvay 1989		20	0.65	29	0.00	29	0.08	27	0.37	1	0.88	27	0.57
Farrell 1958		68	0.53	53	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	1	0.81	55	0.22
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.41	67	0.00	87	0.04	68	0.04	6	0.77	73	0.18
Fliere 1977		1	0.76	1	0.49	1	0.48	1	0.82	1	0.94	1	0.88
Fou 1978		10	0.66	64	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.53	1	0.91	16	0.69
Francois 1956		80	0.49	55	0.00	75	0.04	70	0.04	1	0.83	77	0.18
Friedman 1923		54	0.57	25	0.00	58	0.08	46	0.08	3	0.90	46	0.27
Friedman 1923b		55	0.57	9	0.02	57	0.06	57	0.06	3	0.90	53	0.23
Friedman 1930		48	0.59	30	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	3	0.89	44	0.37
Garcia 2007		78	0.51	89	0.00	64	0.06	56	0.06	2	0.83	57	0.22
Garcia 2007b		71	0.52	69	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	2	0.84	58	0.22
Gierzod 1998		43	0.59	24	0.00	28	0.08	28	0.37	1	0.85	28	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.61	65	0.00	39	0.07	43	0.18	1	0.88	43	0.40
Groot 1988		13	0.66	8	0.02	7	0.23	11	0.60	1	0.91	9	0.74
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.74	7	0.02	2	0.24	2	0.75	1	0.92	2	0.83
Hatto 1993		5	0.69	2	0.14	3	0.26	5	0.65	3	0.91	5	0.77
Hatto 1997		16	0.66	34	0.00	10	0.11	9	0.60	3	0.89	11	0.73
Horowitz 1949		74	0.52	70	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	1	0.83	80	0.16
Indjic 1988		8	0.67	12	0.01	5	0.20	7	0.62	3	0.91	6	0.75
Kapell 1951		26	0.64	17	0.00	25	0.07	29	0.36	1	0.85	29	0.55
Kissin 1993		41	0.60	76	0.00	49	0.05	62	0.05	1	0.89	60	0.21
Kushner 1989		3	0.71	14	0.01	6	0.21	4	0.70	1	0.91	4	0.80
Luisada 1991		23	0.65	27	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.19	1	0.88	40	0.41
Lushtak 2004		42	0.60	57	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.27	1	0.85	37	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		12	0.66	21	0.00	11	0.11	12	0.60	1	0.89	10	0.73
Magaloff 1978		17	0.65	15	0.01	16	0.09	20	0.46	1	0.90	19	0.64
Magin 1975		35	0.62	45	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	1	0.85	45	0.32
Michalowski 1933		82	0.46	61	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	1	0.82	81	0.16
Milkina 1970		44	0.59	54	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.42	1	0.87	25	0.60
Mohovich 1999		33	0.63	26	0.00	24	0.07	21	0.45	1	0.90	21	0.64
Moravec 1969		34	0.63	71	0.00	37	0.08	34	0.31	1	0.87	34	0.52
Morozova 2008		27	0.64	6	0.02	13	0.12	13	0.56	1	0.88	14	0.70
Neighaus 1950		39	0.61	31	0.00	35	0.08	38	0.21	1	0.88	38	0.43
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.52	73	0.00	67	0.03	82	0.03	1	0.81	79	0.16
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.66	51	0.00	21	0.08	23	0.44	1	0.90	23	0.63
Osinska 1989		11	0.66	47	0.00	14	0.09	14	0.55	1	0.90	13	0.70
Pachmann 1927		73	0.52	80	0.00	82	0.04	71	0.04	2	0.81	72	0.18
Paderewski 1930		83	0.45	83	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	1	0.80	87	0.15
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.56	56	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	1	0.86	67	0.19
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.53	86	0.00	79	0.03	88	0.03	1	0.80	86	0.15
Poblocka 1999		32	0.63	43	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.34	1	0.86	30	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.55	39	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	1	0.87	50	0.23
Rachmaninoff 1923		50	0.58	60	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.19	1	0.86	42	0.40
Rangell 2001		58	0.56	42	0.00	52	0.05	65	0.05	1	0.84	66	0.20
Richter 1976		9	0.67	5	0.03	17	0.09	24	0.43	1	0.88	24	0.62
Rosen 1989		7	0.68	18	0.00	12	0.11	8	0.61	1	0.90	8	0.74
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.53	37	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	6	0.84	83	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.44	82	0.00	86	0.05	59	0.05	5	0.84	64	0.20
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.45	90	0.00	85	0.04	74	0.04	5	0.85	76	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		67	0.53	59	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	5	0.87	69	0.19
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.43	87	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	5	0.83	84	0.16
Rossi 2007		88	0.35	79	0.00	88	0.04	73	0.04	2	0.71	78	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		49	0.59	32	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	1	0.83	54	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		29	0.63	11	0.01	22	0.09	17	0.51	1	0.88	18	0.67
Rubinstein 1966		4	0.70	3	0.08	4	0.25	3	0.73	1	0.91	3	0.82
Schilhawsky 1960		60	0.56	75	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	1	0.79	65	0.20
Shebanova 2002		6	0.68	20	0.00	9	0.12	10	0.60	1	0.90	12	0.73
Smith 1975		56	0.57	66	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	1	0.85	71	0.18
Sokolov 2002		52	0.58	35	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	1	0.86	59	0.21
Sztompka 1959		28	0.64	46	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.38	1	0.89	26	0.58
Tomsic 1995		59	0.56	77	0.00	59	0.07	47	0.07	1	0.84	48	0.24
Uninsky 1932		37	0.61	16	0.01	33	0.07	33	0.31	1	0.88	35	0.52
Uninsky 1971		25	0.64	33	0.00	19	0.06	18	0.50	1	0.89	17	0.67
Wasowski 1980		15	0.66	52	0.00	20	0.06	22	0.44	1	0.89	22	0.63
Zak 1937		30	0.63	68	0.00	43	0.09	40	0.19	2	0.89	41	0.41
Zak 1951		31	0.63	28	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.20	2	0.88	39	0.42
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		90	-0.05	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	55	0.05	89	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01

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).