Biret 1990

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		35	0.37	78	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	37	0.19	42	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.25	72	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	86	0.03	83	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.31	42	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04	71	0.04
Bacha 2000		70	0.27	13	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03
Badura 1965		81	0.22	49	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03
Barbosa 1983		25	0.40	46	0.00	24	0.11	19	0.57	44	0.16	28	0.30
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		40	0.36	53	0.00	35	0.09	36	0.31	30	0.36	24	0.33
Block 1995		66	0.28	55	0.00	66	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.04	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		56	0.32	81	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.05	64	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.33	50	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.21	65	0.05	50	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		54	0.32	44	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	59	0.06	61	0.05
Bunin 1987		49	0.33	83	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.14	34	0.23	33	0.18
Bunin 1987b		52	0.32	62	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	41	0.19	43	0.11
Chiu 1999		23	0.41	18	0.00	26	0.10	27	0.43	29	0.24	25	0.32
Cohen 1997		38	0.37	29	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.38	18	0.57	17	0.47
Cortot 1951		67	0.28	32	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	43	0.14	58	0.07
Csalog 1996		12	0.44	19	0.00	21	0.13	12	0.62	10	0.51	13	0.56
Czerny 1949		10	0.46	24	0.00	12	0.13	21	0.54	20	0.64	11	0.59
Czerny 1990		41	0.36	39	0.00	57	0.05	60	0.05	74	0.04	73	0.04
Duchoud 2007		45	0.34	52	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	25	0.33	38	0.14
Ezaki 2006		29	0.39	11	0.01	13	0.13	29	0.39	42	0.25	26	0.31
Falvay 1989		11	0.45	17	0.00	18	0.11	11	0.62	29	0.32	19	0.45
Farrell 1958		14	0.43	41	0.00	14	0.10	10	0.64	4	0.65	8	0.64
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.25	74	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	43	0.19	56	0.08
Fliere 1977		30	0.39	20	0.00	27	0.11	33	0.35	78	0.04	40	0.12
Fou 1978		53	0.32	40	0.00	63	0.06	49	0.06	78	0.03	65	0.04
Francois 1956		21	0.41	12	0.01	11	0.15	13	0.62	3	0.78	3	0.70
Friedman 1923		74	0.25	87	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	59	0.05	74	0.04
Friedman 1923b		75	0.24	88	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.05	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		46	0.34	59	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	37	0.17	37	0.14
Garcia 2007		79	0.23	38	0.00	77	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.05	68	0.04
Garcia 2007b		44	0.34	65	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	42	0.13	54	0.09
Gierzod 1998		86	0.18	76	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.43	34	0.00	22	0.12	17	0.57	22	0.49	15	0.53
Groot 1988		28	0.39	51	0.00	34	0.13	31	0.37	46	0.06	36	0.15
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.43	37	0.00	17	0.11	9	0.65	43	0.15	27	0.31
Hatto 1993		34	0.37	36	0.00	38	0.08	42	0.20	62	0.05	51	0.10
Hatto 1997		3	0.50	6	0.04	6	0.14	6	0.69	8	0.60	9	0.64
Horowitz 1949		63	0.30	48	0.00	60	0.04	70	0.04	37	0.31	44	0.11
Indjic 1988		27	0.40	26	0.00	33	0.13	26	0.44	62	0.05	35	0.15
Kapell 1951		32	0.38	73	0.00	37	0.09	37	0.26	54	0.06	41	0.12
Kissin 1993		83	0.21	60	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.04	81	0.03
Kushner 1989		39	0.37	66	0.00	43	0.09	41	0.21	63	0.05	48	0.10
Luisada 1991		20	0.41	28	0.00	25	0.10	23	0.49	23	0.35	23	0.41
Lushtak 2004		51	0.33	45	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.22	49	0.06	46	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.25	91	0.00	72	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		33	0.37	30	0.00	36	0.11	35	0.33	54	0.05	39	0.13
Magin 1975		62	0.30	21	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.05
Michalowski 1933		69	0.27	79	0.00	51	0.06	53	0.06	19	0.42	34	0.16
Milkina 1970		6	0.47	3	0.06	3	0.29	3	0.77	6	0.74	2	0.75
Mohovich 1999		55	0.32	77	0.00	55	0.04	68	0.04	51	0.05	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		50	0.33	75	0.00	50	0.07	47	0.07	65	0.05	59	0.06
Morozova 2008		59	0.31	67	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	78	0.03	84	0.03
Neighaus 1950		37	0.37	22	0.00	31	0.10	34	0.35	37	0.23	30	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.21	63	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.41	8	0.01	15	0.11	20	0.56	19	0.37	18	0.46
Osinska 1989		2	0.55	1	0.45	1	0.45	2	0.86	5	0.74	1	0.80
Pachmann 1927		84	0.21	82	0.00	87	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03
Paderewski 1930		87	0.15	43	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		76	0.24	89	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.30	71	0.00	65	0.07	48	0.07	43	0.12	52	0.09
Poblocka 1999		36	0.37	54	0.00	39	0.07	43	0.20	59	0.05	47	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.47	7	0.02	7	0.16	8	0.68	6	0.69	6	0.68
Rachmaninoff 1923		15	0.43	5	0.04	8	0.23	16	0.58	13	0.54	12	0.56
Rangell 2001		64	0.30	47	0.00	58	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.07	60	0.06
Richter 1976		61	0.30	70	0.00	73	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04
Rosen 1989		42	0.35	56	0.00	42	0.08	38	0.24	61	0.04	49	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		60	0.31	10	0.01	53	0.05	59	0.05	41	0.23	45	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		88	0.14	90	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.20	80	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	61	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.22	27	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	72	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.24	69	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	40	0.15	57	0.08
Rossi 2007		68	0.28	68	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	36	0.24	55	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		18	0.43	33	0.00	20	0.10	14	0.61	18	0.46	14	0.53
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.40	14	0.00	16	0.14	22	0.54	35	0.34	22	0.43
Rubinstein 1966		31	0.38	86	0.00	30	0.12	24	0.48	52	0.07	32	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.40	61	0.00	29	0.10	25	0.44	6	0.59	16	0.51
Shebanova 2002		57	0.32	23	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.06	63	0.05
Smith 1975		5	0.47	9	0.01	10	0.13	15	0.60	9	0.61	10	0.60
Sokolov 2002		19	0.41	58	0.00	32	0.12	28	0.41	20	0.45	21	0.43
Sztompka 1959		78	0.23	84	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.04	80	0.03
Tomsic 1995		48	0.33	35	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04
Uninsky 1932		43	0.34	31	0.00	23	0.11	32	0.37	33	0.24	29	0.30
Uninsky 1971		13	0.43	16	0.00	19	0.10	18	0.57	30	0.35	20	0.45
Wasowski 1980		4	0.48	4	0.04	4	0.31	4	0.75	6	0.62	5	0.68
Zak 1937		9	0.46	25	0.00	9	0.22	7	0.69	9	0.63	7	0.66
Zak 1951		8	0.46	15	0.00	5	0.24	5	0.73	5	0.66	4	0.69
Average		1	0.59	2	0.22	2	0.55	1	0.87	60	0.05	31	0.21
Random 1		91	-0.03	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	43	0.08	87	0.03
Random 2		89	0.05	64	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.41	53	0.09
Random 3		90	-0.03	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.05	91	0.02

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).