Falvay 1989

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		36	0.43	39	0.00	35	0.08	38	0.19	30	0.31	38	0.24
Anderszewski 2003		39	0.42	41	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.18	23	0.49	35	0.30
Ashkenazy 1981		35	0.43	59	0.00	52	0.06	51	0.06	46	0.10	67	0.08
Bacha 2000		57	0.37	27	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	30	0.27	54	0.12
Badura 1965		55	0.37	23	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	11	0.53	44	0.18
Barbosa 1983		41	0.41	44	0.00	21	0.06	33	0.29	31	0.32	34	0.30
Biret 1990		22	0.45	24	0.00	26	0.05	29	0.32	11	0.62	17	0.45
Blet 2003		77	0.29	75	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Block 1995		44	0.40	71	0.00	22	0.07	27	0.34	16	0.52	23	0.42
Blumental 1952		27	0.45	36	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.34	18	0.52	24	0.42
Boshniakovich 1969		72	0.31	31	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.05	77	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.41	7	0.02	42	0.06	42	0.12	28	0.40	40	0.22
Bunin 1987		49	0.39	47	0.00	49	0.05	59	0.05	24	0.40	50	0.14
Bunin 1987b		52	0.37	73	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	21	0.42	43	0.18
Chiu 1999		32	0.44	63	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	24	0.28	42	0.18
Cohen 1997		50	0.38	21	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	20	0.55	39	0.23
Cortot 1951		83	0.24	87	0.00	77	0.04	79	0.04	65	0.05	85	0.04
Csalog 1996		23	0.45	4	0.03	5	0.15	18	0.42	9	0.51	15	0.46
Czerny 1949		31	0.44	37	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.30	24	0.55	26	0.41
Czerny 1990		9	0.49	13	0.01	13	0.08	15	0.44	27	0.52	14	0.48
Duchoud 2007		67	0.33	34	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	33	0.23	63	0.10
Ezaki 2006		11	0.48	10	0.01	19	0.10	13	0.44	10	0.61	10	0.52
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		46	0.40	28	0.00	34	0.07	36	0.23	16	0.47	33	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		14	0.47	14	0.00	16	0.10	10	0.47	1	0.82	6	0.62
Fliere 1977		38	0.42	67	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.20	51	0.06	58	0.11
Fou 1978		6	0.50	8	0.01	8	0.15	7	0.52	15	0.55	8	0.53
Francois 1956		80	0.28	68	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	31	0.23	65	0.10
Friedman 1923		84	0.23	84	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		85	0.23	85	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1930		74	0.30	81	0.00	75	0.05	64	0.05	48	0.07	71	0.06
Garcia 2007		76	0.29	60	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	34	0.21	64	0.10
Garcia 2007b		63	0.34	54	0.00	65	0.06	47	0.06	29	0.26	57	0.12
Gierzod 1998		40	0.42	42	0.00	39	0.06	40	0.17	35	0.25	41	0.21
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.45	35	0.00	9	0.14	12	0.45	10	0.62	9	0.53
Groot 1988		34	0.43	45	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.36	21	0.41	29	0.38
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.46	33	0.00	33	0.06	30	0.32	46	0.08	47	0.16
Hatto 1993		17	0.47	77	0.00	20	0.09	20	0.40	28	0.31	32	0.35
Hatto 1997		5	0.51	12	0.01	10	0.14	9	0.49	18	0.49	13	0.49
Horowitz 1949		79	0.28	78	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	47	0.06	86	0.03
Indjic 1988		13	0.48	38	0.00	17	0.09	16	0.44	23	0.46	16	0.45
Kapell 1951		20	0.46	19	0.00	28	0.06	22	0.38	24	0.33	31	0.35
Kissin 1993		37	0.42	15	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.15	33	0.47	37	0.27
Kushner 1989		2	0.53	11	0.01	6	0.19	2	0.65	11	0.61	5	0.63
Luisada 1991		29	0.44	46	0.00	23	0.08	25	0.35	18	0.49	25	0.41
Lushtak 2004		33	0.43	25	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.32	20	0.50	28	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.35	61	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05	75	0.05
Magaloff 1978		64	0.33	49	0.00	61	0.05	69	0.05	57	0.05	74	0.05
Magin 1975		48	0.39	18	0.00	54	0.06	52	0.06	42	0.18	61	0.10
Michalowski 1933		87	0.20	79	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	43	0.16	70	0.06
Milkina 1970		4	0.52	2	0.09	2	0.40	4	0.63	8	0.70	1	0.66
Mohovich 1999		47	0.40	48	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	38	0.25	59	0.11
Moravec 1969		3	0.53	3	0.07	4	0.17	6	0.58	4	0.68	4	0.63
Morozova 2008		45	0.40	62	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	36	0.27	56	0.12
Neighaus 1950		73	0.30	82	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.28	83	0.00	72	0.05	68	0.05	40	0.19	60	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		62	0.34	50	0.00	69	0.04	77	0.04	63	0.04	81	0.04
Osinska 1989		8	0.49	5	0.03	3	0.25	3	0.63	8	0.66	3	0.64
Pachmann 1927		82	0.26	86	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	53	0.07	79	0.04
Paderewski 1930		88	0.15	90	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		75	0.29	57	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	51	0.06	73	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.33	40	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	41	0.13	68	0.07
Poblocka 1999		12	0.48	16	0.00	25	0.09	14	0.44	14	0.55	12	0.49
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.36	17	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	40	0.22	62	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		58	0.36	58	0.00	60	0.05	57	0.05	48	0.07	69	0.06
Rangell 2001		54	0.37	69	0.00	47	0.05	67	0.05	30	0.41	51	0.14
Richter 1976		56	0.37	53	0.00	62	0.04	74	0.04	78	0.04	78	0.04
Rosen 1989		43	0.41	43	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	36	0.18	53	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.33	55	0.00	71	0.05	63	0.05	32	0.40	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.32	56	0.00	63	0.05	65	0.05	22	0.53	45	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.32	72	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	28	0.46	52	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.36	51	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	23	0.44	48	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.31	64	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	16	0.50	46	0.16
Rossi 2007		86	0.21	70	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	35	0.25	66	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.45	22	0.00	12	0.12	11	0.46	12	0.54	11	0.50
Rubinstein 1952		24	0.45	26	0.00	14	0.09	17	0.42	25	0.49	18	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.48	20	0.00	11	0.12	8	0.50	25	0.37	22	0.43
Schilhawsky 1960		81	0.26	52	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.03
Shebanova 2002		18	0.46	30	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.29	36	0.31	36	0.30
Smith 1975		25	0.45	6	0.02	15	0.09	24	0.36	19	0.51	20	0.43
Sokolov 2002		53	0.37	88	0.00	64	0.05	66	0.05	38	0.27	55	0.12
Sztompka 1959		65	0.33	80	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04	80	0.04
Tomsic 1995		7	0.49	9	0.01	7	0.24	5	0.62	3	0.70	2	0.66
Uninsky 1932		51	0.37	76	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.04	82	0.04
Uninsky 1971		21	0.46	74	0.00	18	0.08	19	0.41	20	0.46	21	0.43
Wasowski 1980		30	0.44	65	0.00	24	0.10	21	0.39	22	0.49	19	0.44
Zak 1937		15	0.47	32	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.26	14	0.51	30	0.36
Zak 1951		16	0.47	29	0.00	36	0.09	31	0.31	11	0.52	27	0.40
Average		1	0.65	1	0.62	1	0.61	1	0.88	27	0.37	7	0.57
Random 1		90	-0.02	66	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	23	0.35	72	0.06
Random 2		89	0.00	89	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	43	0.14	76	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	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).