Groot 1988

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	0.42	27	0.00	10	0.14	17	0.46	7	0.62	16	0.53
Anderszewski 2003		80	0.29	50	0.00	71	0.05	59	0.05	51	0.07	74	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.49	39	0.00	16	0.13	13	0.50	12	0.64	9	0.57
Bacha 2000		74	0.31	71	0.00	79	0.05	58	0.05	42	0.15	65	0.09
Badura 1965		72	0.32	41	0.00	74	0.03	88	0.03	43	0.11	76	0.06
Barbosa 1983		32	0.41	58	0.00	24	0.06	22	0.39	20	0.42	28	0.40
Biret 1990		47	0.39	73	0.00	60	0.06	46	0.06	31	0.37	47	0.15
Blet 2003		16	0.45	7	0.01	14	0.11	16	0.47	4	0.67	11	0.56
Block 1995		42	0.40	17	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.21	26	0.42	37	0.30
Blumental 1952		24	0.43	52	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.34	17	0.54	24	0.43
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.40	35	0.00	47	0.06	49	0.06	51	0.06	77	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.35	26	0.00	65	0.04	75	0.04	32	0.29	59	0.11
Bunin 1987		35	0.41	45	0.00	33	0.09	33	0.27	21	0.42	34	0.34
Bunin 1987b		34	0.41	46	0.00	32	0.09	32	0.28	17	0.47	32	0.36
Chiu 1999		39	0.41	28	0.00	25	0.07	27	0.36	11	0.54	23	0.44
Cohen 1997		60	0.35	42	0.00	41	0.05	45	0.10	22	0.54	41	0.23
Cortot 1951		86	0.23	75	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	64	0.05	87	0.04
Csalog 1996		29	0.42	56	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	23	0.32	61	0.11
Czerny 1949		83	0.24	68	0.00	86	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.04
Czerny 1990		11	0.47	2	0.02	6	0.21	10	0.54	25	0.56	15	0.55
Duchoud 2007		57	0.36	59	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	19	0.43	54	0.13
Ezaki 2006		56	0.36	47	0.00	64	0.04	77	0.04	48	0.09	72	0.06
Falvay 1989		23	0.43	40	0.00	23	0.06	21	0.41	23	0.36	31	0.38
Farrell 1958		78	0.30	69	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	47	0.08	73	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.19	82	0.00	87	0.04	74	0.04	49	0.08	75	0.06
Fliere 1977		2	0.58	4	0.01	2	0.34	2	0.80	6	0.73	1	0.76
Fou 1978		37	0.41	55	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.15	38	0.26	42	0.20
Francois 1956		64	0.33	38	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	24	0.42	62	0.11
Friedman 1923		62	0.34	37	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	31	0.33	63	0.11
Friedman 1923b		63	0.34	18	0.00	67	0.05	52	0.05	33	0.35	55	0.13
Friedman 1930		30	0.41	67	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.27	14	0.57	29	0.39
Garcia 2007		77	0.30	62	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	36	0.17	69	0.08
Garcia 2007b		20	0.44	33	0.00	22	0.07	25	0.37	17	0.55	21	0.45
Gierzod 1998		76	0.30	63	0.00	40	0.06	42	0.11	41	0.15	53	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		58	0.35	64	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.19	32	0.36	38	0.26
Groot 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.40	74	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.11	68	0.05	71	0.07
Hatto 1993		4	0.53	43	0.00	3	0.32	3	0.76	6	0.74	2	0.75
Hatto 1997		12	0.47	34	0.00	11	0.11	9	0.56	10	0.57	12	0.56
Horowitz 1949		21	0.44	14	0.00	44	0.06	41	0.15	7	0.67	36	0.32
Indjic 1988		5	0.52	16	0.00	4	0.26	4	0.73	4	0.75	3	0.74
Kapell 1951		49	0.39	23	0.00	55	0.03	84	0.03	58	0.06	82	0.04
Kissin 1993		52	0.38	78	0.00	51	0.04	76	0.04	37	0.39	57	0.12
Kushner 1989		17	0.45	72	0.00	27	0.09	24	0.38	30	0.30	33	0.34
Luisada 1991		6	0.50	5	0.01	8	0.18	6	0.59	9	0.65	5	0.62
Lushtak 2004		75	0.30	32	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	37	0.13	70	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		38	0.41	29	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	44	0.12	60	0.11
Magaloff 1978		18	0.45	49	0.00	18	0.13	20	0.41	15	0.49	20	0.45
Magin 1975		3	0.54	3	0.01	5	0.19	7	0.59	7	0.66	6	0.62
Michalowski 1933		61	0.35	13	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	18	0.42	52	0.13
Milkina 1970		50	0.39	31	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.25	31	0.40	35	0.32
Mohovich 1999		22	0.43	22	0.00	21	0.08	18	0.44	17	0.56	17	0.50
Moravec 1969		33	0.41	36	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.17	22	0.36	39	0.25
Morozova 2008		36	0.41	9	0.01	17	0.14	15	0.47	24	0.47	18	0.47
Neighaus 1950		53	0.37	84	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	27	0.36	56	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.39	15	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	14	0.48	43	0.17
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.36	65	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	56	0.05	81	0.05
Osinska 1989		55	0.36	54	0.00	58	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.05	78	0.05
Pachmann 1927		81	0.28	85	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	46	0.08	80	0.05
Paderewski 1930		65	0.33	51	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	23	0.47	49	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.39	70	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	20	0.45	51	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.32	76	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	35	0.19	67	0.08
Poblocka 1999		19	0.45	53	0.00	26	0.07	23	0.38	22	0.50	22	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.32	48	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	39	0.23	64	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		10	0.48	6	0.01	9	0.18	14	0.49	4	0.70	7	0.59
Rangell 2001		85	0.23	89	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.05	86	0.04
Richter 1976		14	0.46	19	0.00	19	0.09	19	0.42	25	0.50	19	0.46
Rosen 1989		45	0.39	11	0.01	29	0.09	26	0.37	16	0.42	30	0.39
Rosenthal 1930		31	0.41	24	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.25	12	0.68	27	0.41
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.23	57	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	24	0.48	58	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.26	86	0.00	82	0.05	50	0.05	24	0.49	45	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.32	77	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	20	0.48	50	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.29	79	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	14	0.54	48	0.15
Rossi 2007		88	0.16	88	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.04	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		67	0.33	60	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	33	0.18	68	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		13	0.46	12	0.01	15	0.10	12	0.54	11	0.60	10	0.57
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.42	20	0.00	30	0.09	31	0.34	37	0.17	40	0.24
Schilhawsky 1960		69	0.33	66	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	48	0.06	84	0.04
Shebanova 2002		7	0.49	25	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.60	16	0.53	13	0.56
Smith 1975		41	0.40	61	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	23	0.47	46	0.15
Sokolov 2002		40	0.40	30	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	16	0.49	44	0.16
Sztompka 1959		25	0.42	10	0.01	31	0.09	28	0.36	22	0.47	26	0.41
Tomsic 1995		27	0.42	21	0.00	20	0.08	29	0.36	11	0.49	25	0.42
Uninsky 1932		46	0.39	83	0.00	59	0.05	53	0.05	36	0.18	66	0.09
Uninsky 1971		15	0.46	44	0.00	12	0.13	8	0.56	8	0.61	8	0.58
Wasowski 1980		9	0.48	8	0.01	13	0.12	11	0.54	11	0.56	14	0.55
Zak 1937		68	0.33	87	0.00	78	0.04	60	0.04	52	0.06	79	0.05
Zak 1951		66	0.33	91	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	53	0.05	83	0.04
Average		1	0.66	1	0.82	1	0.81	1	0.91	11	0.60	4	0.74
Random 1		91	-0.06	81	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	57	0.04	89	0.03
Random 2		89	-0.03	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	75	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.04	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	67	0.03	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).