Gornostaeva 1994

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		57	0.33	69	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	49	0.05	68	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		27	0.40	16	0.00	25	0.16	20	0.53	19	0.52	15	0.52
Ashkenazy 1981		75	0.28	84	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.05	80	0.04
Bacha 2000		84	0.24	27	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03
Badura 1965		73	0.28	78	0.00	65	0.05	57	0.05	53	0.04	79	0.04
Barbosa 1983		44	0.36	60	0.00	50	0.08	48	0.08	66	0.06	51	0.07
Biret 1990		17	0.43	61	0.00	26	0.12	22	0.49	17	0.57	14	0.53
Blet 2003		74	0.28	59	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.04	87	0.03
Block 1995		29	0.40	47	0.00	30	0.09	24	0.47	33	0.30	28	0.38
Blumental 1952		66	0.30	81	0.00	66	0.05	60	0.05	66	0.05	69	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.41	34	0.00	10	0.14	19	0.53	30	0.30	27	0.40
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.34	58	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.05	63	0.05
Bunin 1987		56	0.33	30	0.00	56	0.05	59	0.05	50	0.06	71	0.05
Bunin 1987b		58	0.32	72	0.00	61	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.06	65	0.05
Chiu 1999		54	0.34	28	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	56	0.05	72	0.04
Cohen 1997		25	0.41	15	0.00	19	0.13	25	0.46	8	0.63	12	0.54
Cortot 1951		33	0.39	14	0.01	17	0.08	33	0.36	15	0.55	23	0.44
Csalog 1996		30	0.40	21	0.00	34	0.11	36	0.29	21	0.35	30	0.32
Czerny 1949		6	0.51	4	0.08	6	0.23	7	0.66	8	0.77	5	0.71
Czerny 1990		52	0.34	51	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.13	55	0.06	46	0.09
Duchoud 2007		60	0.31	86	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	36	0.22	41	0.14
Ezaki 2006		9	0.47	20	0.00	12	0.12	9	0.64	12	0.60	8	0.62
Falvay 1989		13	0.45	11	0.01	8	0.19	10	0.62	12	0.45	13	0.53
Farrell 1958		55	0.34	38	0.00	46	0.04	64	0.04	51	0.06	64	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		32	0.39	62	0.00	36	0.10	35	0.32	10	0.73	19	0.48
Fliere 1977		14	0.44	42	0.00	29	0.09	27	0.44	50	0.07	38	0.18
Fou 1978		37	0.39	40	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	56	0.05	55	0.06
Francois 1956		12	0.45	10	0.01	15	0.07	15	0.55	5	0.76	7	0.65
Friedman 1923		77	0.26	79	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	40	0.14	61	0.06
Friedman 1923b		79	0.25	68	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.11	54	0.07
Friedman 1930		65	0.30	32	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.09	55	0.06	52	0.07
Garcia 2007		67	0.30	73	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.09	61	0.05	53	0.07
Garcia 2007b		70	0.29	63	0.00	76	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.04	90	0.03
Gierzod 1998		22	0.42	13	0.01	13	0.11	13	0.59	18	0.46	16	0.52
Gornostaeva 1994		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Groot 1988		49	0.35	44	0.00	27	0.08	32	0.36	38	0.19	32	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.49	19	0.00	7	0.15	6	0.68	22	0.45	11	0.55
Hatto 1993		62	0.31	83	0.00	67	0.05	58	0.05	84	0.03	81	0.04
Hatto 1997		40	0.38	87	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.09	66	0.04	60	0.06
Horowitz 1949		82	0.24	82	0.00	86	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Indjic 1988		76	0.28	90	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.04	86	0.03
Kapell 1951		46	0.36	49	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.17	72	0.05	44	0.09
Kissin 1993		78	0.25	89	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.08	58	0.06
Kushner 1989		23	0.42	43	0.00	32	0.11	26	0.46	70	0.05	40	0.15
Luisada 1991		50	0.35	48	0.00	63	0.05	63	0.05	63	0.06	62	0.05
Lushtak 2004		35	0.39	36	0.00	37	0.10	37	0.26	36	0.14	37	0.19
Malcuzynski 1961		38	0.38	46	0.00	31	0.09	28	0.44	45	0.10	35	0.21
Magaloff 1978		11	0.46	6	0.02	20	0.10	18	0.54	21	0.39	20	0.46
Magin 1975		39	0.38	23	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.13	45	0.11	42	0.12
Michalowski 1933		87	0.22	57	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	45	0.11	57	0.06
Milkina 1970		19	0.42	22	0.00	9	0.17	12	0.61	19	0.57	9	0.59
Mohovich 1999		16	0.43	70	0.00	21	0.09	17	0.55	26	0.47	17	0.51
Moravec 1969		36	0.39	26	0.00	28	0.10	29	0.42	27	0.33	29	0.37
Morozova 2008		42	0.37	33	0.00	51	0.07	50	0.07	58	0.05	59	0.06
Neighaus 1950		18	0.42	9	0.01	18	0.12	23	0.48	20	0.42	22	0.45
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.24	54	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.38	37	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	77	0.03	76	0.04
Osinska 1989		2	0.60	2	0.16	2	0.43	2	0.84	3	0.80	2	0.82
Pachmann 1927		61	0.31	66	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	50	0.07	66	0.05
Paderewski 1930		88	0.20	18	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	91	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.42	31	0.00	33	0.12	34	0.35	14	0.52	24	0.43
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.28	76	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	64	0.04	83	0.03
Poblocka 1999		31	0.40	64	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.21	44	0.16	39	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.56	3	0.12	3	0.47	3	0.81	2	0.85	1	0.83
Rachmaninoff 1923		69	0.30	71	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.05	73	0.04
Rangell 2001		48	0.35	17	0.00	22	0.11	31	0.36	24	0.48	25	0.42
Richter 1976		43	0.36	53	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	67	0.05	75	0.04
Rosen 1989		4	0.54	8	0.01	4	0.38	4	0.78	5	0.69	4	0.73
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.36	91	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	25	0.55	36	0.21
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.25	65	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	42	0.19	49	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.23	74	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	37	0.25	48	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.30	52	0.00	57	0.05	62	0.05	28	0.28	43	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.22	39	0.00	72	0.03	84	0.03	28	0.30	47	0.09
Rossi 2007		34	0.39	25	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	4	0.65	34	0.21
Rubinstein 1939		21	0.42	12	0.01	16	0.08	21	0.51	21	0.42	21	0.46
Rubinstein 1952		20	0.42	45	0.00	23	0.16	16	0.55	30	0.45	18	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.44	35	0.00	24	0.14	14	0.56	46	0.09	33	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.25	41	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.03
Shebanova 2002		63	0.30	55	0.00	78	0.03	71	0.03	56	0.06	77	0.04
Smith 1975		5	0.52	5	0.03	5	0.26	5	0.74	2	0.81	3	0.77
Sokolov 2002		8	0.48	7	0.01	11	0.11	11	0.62	4	0.70	6	0.66
Sztompka 1959		51	0.35	50	0.00	64	0.06	54	0.06	64	0.05	67	0.05
Tomsic 1995		47	0.35	77	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	48	0.08	56	0.06
Uninsky 1932		72	0.28	80	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.03
Uninsky 1971		10	0.47	24	0.00	14	0.10	8	0.65	14	0.52	10	0.58
Wasowski 1980		28	0.40	29	0.00	35	0.09	30	0.37	36	0.21	31	0.28
Zak 1937		64	0.30	88	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.05	74	0.04
Zak 1951		59	0.32	75	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	45	0.11	50	0.07
Average		1	0.61	1	0.46	1	0.46	1	0.88	43	0.18	26	0.40
Random 1		90	0.02	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	18	0.41	45	0.09
Random 2		89	0.02	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	38	0.18	78	0.04
Random 3		91	-0.05	56	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	28	0.23	70	0.05

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).