Duchoud 2007

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	0.26	42	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.22	21	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	75	0.03	64	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.39	33	0.00	20	0.11	17	0.45	42	0.19	12	0.29
Bacha 2000		60	0.26	34	0.00	62	0.04	82	0.04	71	0.04	55	0.04
Badura 1965		63	0.25	72	0.00	33	0.08	32	0.25	28	0.29	15	0.27
Barbosa 1983		67	0.24	90	0.00	73	0.06	49	0.06	88	0.02	79	0.03
Biret 1990		24	0.34	60	0.00	32	0.07	25	0.33	50	0.06	30	0.14
Blet 2003		51	0.29	54	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	54	0.05	52	0.05
Block 1995		77	0.19	73	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		83	0.13	77	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.29	43	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.10	74	0.04	48	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.12	91	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03
Bunin 1987		40	0.30	50	0.00	13	0.15	18	0.43	27	0.35	10	0.39
Bunin 1987b		39	0.31	10	0.02	11	0.18	15	0.47	24	0.42	9	0.44
Chiu 1999		3	0.45	5	0.04	4	0.23	2	0.73	6	0.58	1	0.65
Cohen 1997		62	0.25	23	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		82	0.16	81	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	81	0.02	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		12	0.39	28	0.00	9	0.14	8	0.62	11	0.49	6	0.55
Czerny 1949		64	0.24	63	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.04	67	0.04
Czerny 1990		22	0.34	55	0.00	42	0.04	40	0.13	63	0.05	44	0.08
Duchoud 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ezaki 2006		76	0.20	84	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	79	0.04	54	0.04
Falvay 1989		28	0.33	61	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.23	73	0.04	38	0.10
Farrell 1958		6	0.42	7	0.03	6	0.22	6	0.65	9	0.55	2	0.60
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.04	78	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Fliere 1977		13	0.38	37	0.00	10	0.19	7	0.62	53	0.06	19	0.19
Fou 1978		42	0.30	68	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	80	0.03	60	0.04
Francois 1956		56	0.27	35	0.00	63	0.04	77	0.04	55	0.04	73	0.04
Friedman 1923		50	0.29	56	0.00	41	0.04	45	0.09	61	0.05	46	0.07
Friedman 1923b		48	0.29	38	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.13	42	0.16	28	0.14
Friedman 1930		27	0.33	11	0.01	27	0.08	27	0.32	33	0.24	13	0.28
Garcia 2007		44	0.29	45	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.05	53	0.05
Garcia 2007b		37	0.32	44	0.00	31	0.07	30	0.30	45	0.10	23	0.17
Gierzod 1998		79	0.18	86	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	89	0.02	80	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.31	65	0.00	36	0.08	36	0.22	45	0.09	29	0.14
Groot 1988		19	0.36	14	0.01	19	0.09	19	0.43	64	0.04	32	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		66	0.24	89	0.00	71	0.05	62	0.05	80	0.04	71	0.04
Hatto 1993		16	0.37	24	0.00	18	0.10	21	0.40	53	0.07	22	0.17
Hatto 1997		23	0.34	32	0.00	29	0.07	34	0.22	59	0.05	39	0.10
Horowitz 1949		69	0.23	52	0.00	59	0.05	63	0.05	68	0.04	61	0.04
Indjic 1988		18	0.36	59	0.00	25	0.10	22	0.35	71	0.05	31	0.13
Kapell 1951		11	0.39	36	0.00	14	0.11	11	0.54	50	0.07	20	0.19
Kissin 1993		43	0.30	69	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.14	59	0.06	42	0.09
Kushner 1989		7	0.41	8	0.02	7	0.14	9	0.60	42	0.12	14	0.27
Luisada 1991		54	0.28	27	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	58	0.06	50	0.05
Lushtak 2004		34	0.32	26	0.00	22	0.09	23	0.34	63	0.04	33	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.26	30	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	73	0.04	47	0.06
Magaloff 1978		53	0.28	85	0.00	55	0.06	55	0.06	71	0.03	57	0.04
Magin 1975		36	0.32	17	0.01	38	0.06	38	0.14	65	0.04	45	0.07
Michalowski 1933		68	0.23	25	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	35	0.25	27	0.14
Milkina 1970		26	0.33	76	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.33	52	0.06	26	0.14
Mohovich 1999		71	0.23	41	0.00	57	0.05	66	0.05	86	0.03	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		49	0.29	57	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	86	0.02	74	0.03
Morozova 2008		9	0.39	18	0.01	8	0.16	10	0.59	26	0.42	7	0.50
Neighaus 1950		31	0.33	9	0.02	23	0.08	31	0.30	62	0.04	36	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.24	46	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.04	59	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		2	0.46	4	0.07	5	0.19	5	0.68	20	0.36	8	0.49
Osinska 1989		29	0.33	15	0.01	21	0.09	24	0.34	49	0.06	25	0.14
Pachmann 1927		32	0.32	51	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	37	0.18	34	0.11
Paderewski 1930		81	0.16	83	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.21	48	0.00	72	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.04	56	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		8	0.40	19	0.01	15	0.09	12	0.54	5	0.58	5	0.56
Poblocka 1999		41	0.30	74	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.09	46	0.08	43	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.28	58	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	77	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.29	39	0.00	34	0.08	35	0.22	56	0.05	37	0.10
Rangell 2001		21	0.35	12	0.01	26	0.08	28	0.31	41	0.19	16	0.24
Richter 1976		14	0.38	20	0.00	16	0.08	13	0.51	50	0.06	21	0.17
Rosen 1989		5	0.44	3	0.09	3	0.21	3	0.72	11	0.50	3	0.60
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.21	67	0.00	79	0.04	79	0.04	78	0.04	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.08	82	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.11	87	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.19	64	0.00	74	0.05	65	0.05	69	0.04	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.10	88	0.00	84	0.04	80	0.04	79	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		73	0.22	80	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	38	0.22	40	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		20	0.35	31	0.00	24	0.07	20	0.42	40	0.11	18	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		35	0.32	70	0.00	40	0.04	44	0.09	62	0.04	49	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.36	22	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.31	70	0.04	35	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.17	62	0.00	81	0.04	81	0.04	76	0.04	65	0.04
Shebanova 2002		4	0.44	2	0.12	2	0.20	4	0.72	26	0.45	4	0.57
Smith 1975		70	0.23	66	0.00	78	0.04	67	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04
Sokolov 2002		52	0.28	71	0.00	65	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.04	76	0.03
Sztompka 1959		45	0.29	53	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	68	0.04	63	0.04
Tomsic 1995		33	0.32	6	0.04	12	0.13	16	0.46	34	0.22	11	0.32
Uninsky 1932		58	0.27	16	0.01	52	0.06	54	0.06	79	0.03	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		57	0.27	40	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	86	0.02	78	0.03
Wasowski 1980		15	0.38	13	0.01	17	0.11	14	0.48	42	0.11	17	0.23
Zak 1937		25	0.34	29	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.11	48	0.07	41	0.09
Zak 1951		30	0.33	79	0.00	47	0.06	56	0.06	61	0.05	51	0.05
Average		1	0.51	1	0.40	1	0.40	1	0.82	80	0.03	24	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.07	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		91	-0.07	49	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	59	0.05	88	0.02
Random 3		89	0.00	47	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.05	89	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).