Brailowsky 1960

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		26	0.38	24	0.00	26	0.11	25	0.49	28	0.34	20	0.41
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.45	10	0.01	9	0.16	4	0.76	12	0.63	7	0.69
Ashkenazy 1981		77	0.22	34	0.00	77	0.05	71	0.05	75	0.04	77	0.04
Bacha 2000		36	0.34	69	0.00	27	0.13	29	0.39	20	0.39	21	0.39
Badura 1965		38	0.34	27	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.18	27	0.29	26	0.23
Barbosa 1983		24	0.38	39	0.00	31	0.10	31	0.33	64	0.06	33	0.14
Biret 1990		44	0.32	40	0.00	50	0.06	59	0.06	64	0.04	66	0.05
Blet 2003		64	0.27	61	0.00	64	0.05	67	0.05	82	0.03	75	0.04
Block 1995		10	0.44	16	0.00	10	0.19	15	0.63	18	0.51	15	0.57
Blumental 1952		5	0.49	2	0.26	2	0.34	5	0.74	8	0.68	4	0.71
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.34	62	0.00	32	0.12	30	0.35	75	0.04	35	0.12
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		66	0.26	73	0.00	75	0.04	78	0.04	88	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		71	0.25	60	0.00	76	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.04	70	0.04
Chiu 1999		63	0.27	67	0.00	70	0.06	55	0.06	73	0.04	55	0.05
Cohen 1997		55	0.29	29	0.00	46	0.06	58	0.06	43	0.20	39	0.11
Cortot 1951		41	0.33	21	0.00	28	0.11	33	0.25	23	0.39	24	0.31
Csalog 1996		53	0.30	46	0.00	66	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.04	74	0.04
Czerny 1949		52	0.30	44	0.00	55	0.05	64	0.05	52	0.06	63	0.05
Czerny 1990		59	0.29	38	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	66	0.04	65	0.05
Duchoud 2007		85	0.12	91	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		4	0.49	4	0.05	5	0.22	7	0.72	11	0.60	9	0.66
Falvay 1989		19	0.41	8	0.02	24	0.11	28	0.40	42	0.12	28	0.22
Farrell 1958		48	0.31	65	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	50	0.06	48	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		12	0.43	9	0.02	15	0.11	17	0.63	2	0.79	3	0.71
Fliere 1977		8	0.45	11	0.01	8	0.17	10	0.68	49	0.07	27	0.22
Fou 1978		17	0.42	30	0.00	13	0.13	11	0.67	28	0.35	18	0.48
Francois 1956		78	0.22	83	0.00	78	0.05	66	0.05	73	0.03	79	0.04
Friedman 1923		43	0.32	87	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.15	49	0.07	42	0.10
Friedman 1923b		45	0.31	54	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.17	46	0.08	36	0.12
Friedman 1930		75	0.24	88	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	73	0.04	46	0.07
Garcia 2007		81	0.21	57	0.00	80	0.04	79	0.04	76	0.04	76	0.04
Garcia 2007b		82	0.16	48	0.00	83	0.05	73	0.05	82	0.03	80	0.04
Gierzod 1998		11	0.43	17	0.00	11	0.15	8	0.71	23	0.40	16	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.34	63	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	53	0.06	64	0.05
Groot 1988		35	0.35	45	0.00	33	0.08	32	0.29	75	0.04	40	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.43	33	0.00	20	0.15	13	0.65	50	0.06	29	0.20
Hatto 1993		61	0.28	81	0.00	72	0.07	50	0.07	65	0.05	53	0.06
Hatto 1997		57	0.29	84	0.00	67	0.05	68	0.05	51	0.05	61	0.05
Horowitz 1949		29	0.36	18	0.00	22	0.19	21	0.56	10	0.60	14	0.58
Indjic 1988		76	0.24	52	0.00	73	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.04	84	0.03
Kapell 1951		62	0.27	68	0.00	71	0.06	52	0.06	74	0.04	57	0.05
Kissin 1993		83	0.14	55	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Kushner 1989		42	0.32	66	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	75	0.04	49	0.06
Luisada 1991		32	0.36	35	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.15	46	0.09	34	0.12
Lushtak 2004		25	0.38	42	0.00	30	0.10	27	0.40	35	0.16	25	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		58	0.29	82	0.00	60	0.06	53	0.06	84	0.03	71	0.04
Magaloff 1978		18	0.42	13	0.00	23	0.13	22	0.55	38	0.18	23	0.31
Magin 1975		79	0.21	70	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Michalowski 1933		84	0.14	77	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Milkina 1970		50	0.31	58	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	77	0.03	69	0.04
Mohovich 1999		2	0.51	3	0.06	3	0.29	2	0.81	8	0.66	1	0.73
Moravec 1969		16	0.42	12	0.00	16	0.13	23	0.52	23	0.33	19	0.41
Morozova 2008		47	0.31	74	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.21	79	0.03	45	0.08
Neighaus 1950		60	0.28	85	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.13	63	0.04	47	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.26	86	0.00	47	0.06	60	0.06	72	0.04	56	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.31	47	0.00	53	0.07	47	0.07	61	0.04	60	0.05
Osinska 1989		31	0.36	49	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.15	51	0.05	43	0.09
Pachmann 1927		80	0.21	72	0.00	81	0.05	74	0.05	72	0.04	72	0.04
Paderewski 1930		89	0.00	78	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.25	23	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	55	0.06	54	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.08	89	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Poblocka 1999		3	0.49	6	0.04	4	0.27	3	0.77	6	0.64	5	0.70
Rabcewiczowa 1932		46	0.31	75	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	50	0.06	44	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		15	0.43	19	0.00	12	0.16	12	0.66	15	0.54	12	0.60
Rangell 2001		65	0.26	80	0.00	63	0.05	72	0.05	76	0.03	78	0.04
Richter 1976		54	0.30	43	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	54	0.06	59	0.05
Rosen 1989		20	0.41	20	0.00	17	0.13	20	0.58	35	0.18	22	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		9	0.44	5	0.04	7	0.20	9	0.69	9	0.75	2	0.72
Rosenthal 1931		21	0.39	32	0.00	14	0.16	16	0.63	6	0.78	6	0.70
Rosenthal 1931b		22	0.39	15	0.00	19	0.12	18	0.58	6	0.77	8	0.67
Rosenthal 1931c		28	0.37	25	0.00	25	0.10	24	0.50	15	0.54	17	0.52
Rosenthal 1931d		23	0.39	50	0.00	18	0.10	19	0.58	7	0.75	10	0.66
Rossi 2007		87	0.04	41	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		34	0.36	26	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.22	43	0.09	32	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.30	31	0.00	58	0.07	48	0.07	81	0.03	67	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.38	22	0.00	29	0.14	26	0.40	48	0.08	30	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.33	56	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	49	0.06	50	0.06
Shebanova 2002		69	0.25	51	0.00	69	0.05	70	0.05	64	0.06	62	0.05
Smith 1975		13	0.43	14	0.00	21	0.17	14	0.64	15	0.55	13	0.59
Sokolov 2002		72	0.25	71	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03
Sztompka 1959		70	0.25	64	0.00	62	0.05	69	0.05	81	0.04	73	0.04
Tomsic 1995		73	0.25	36	0.00	61	0.06	61	0.06	76	0.04	58	0.05
Uninsky 1932		56	0.29	53	0.00	54	0.07	51	0.07	53	0.05	51	0.06
Uninsky 1971		6	0.46	7	0.02	6	0.20	6	0.73	10	0.58	11	0.65
Wasowski 1980		67	0.26	59	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.04	68	0.04
Zak 1937		30	0.36	28	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.24	55	0.05	37	0.11
Zak 1951		33	0.36	37	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.21	51	0.05	41	0.10
Average		1	0.54	1	0.39	1	0.38	1	0.85	67	0.04	31	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.11	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		88	0.03	79	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	17	0.39	38	0.11
Random 3		90	-0.07	76	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	37	0.18	52	0.06

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).