Harasiewicz 1955

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	0.41	66	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	18	0.49	52	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.49	62	0.00	24	0.10	19	0.48	4	0.72	16	0.59
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.40	31	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.08	76	0.06
Bacha 2000		77	0.33	75	0.00	70	0.05	65	0.05	19	0.40	58	0.14
Badura 1965		74	0.34	57	0.00	78	0.05	59	0.05	55	0.04	86	0.04
Barbosa 1983		5	0.54	33	0.00	16	0.09	12	0.55	3	0.74	10	0.64
Biret 1990		54	0.43	46	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.15	9	0.65	42	0.31
Blet 2003		46	0.45	19	0.00	62	0.05	70	0.05	22	0.46	57	0.15
Block 1995		8	0.53	8	0.01	17	0.08	16	0.52	4	0.74	12	0.62
Blumental 1952		55	0.43	63	0.00	38	0.06	42	0.15	23	0.48	43	0.27
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.50	37	0.00	11	0.17	10	0.58	5	0.71	11	0.64
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.43	69	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	13	0.65	46	0.20
Bunin 1987		82	0.29	70	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	90	0.02
Bunin 1987b		83	0.29	78	0.00	87	0.04	82	0.04	80	0.03	88	0.03
Chiu 1999		36	0.47	53	0.00	63	0.06	54	0.06	30	0.23	64	0.12
Cohen 1997		68	0.38	5	0.01	58	0.05	69	0.05	28	0.49	55	0.16
Cortot 1951		66	0.38	38	0.00	65	0.06	52	0.06	13	0.60	47	0.19
Csalog 1996		52	0.43	83	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	20	0.36	62	0.13
Czerny 1949		25	0.49	11	0.00	8	0.12	7	0.60	7	0.80	5	0.69
Czerny 1990		11	0.51	14	0.00	6	0.15	5	0.63	11	0.75	6	0.69
Duchoud 2007		86	0.24	88	0.00	88	0.04	80	0.04	62	0.05	84	0.04
Ezaki 2006		34	0.47	35	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.23	15	0.58	37	0.37
Falvay 1989		42	0.46	64	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	30	0.32	53	0.16
Farrell 1958		71	0.36	58	0.00	64	0.05	73	0.05	31	0.25	67	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.35	50	0.00	73	0.05	74	0.05	27	0.55	51	0.17
Fliere 1977		4	0.55	27	0.00	20	0.10	13	0.54	20	0.49	21	0.51
Fou 1978		9	0.52	71	0.00	13	0.13	8	0.59	5	0.69	9	0.64
Francois 1956		57	0.41	76	0.00	52	0.05	62	0.05	11	0.68	50	0.18
Friedman 1923		65	0.39	56	0.00	71	0.05	72	0.05	35	0.26	69	0.11
Friedman 1923b		63	0.40	45	0.00	69	0.05	57	0.05	30	0.39	60	0.14
Friedman 1930		61	0.40	25	0.00	68	0.06	48	0.06	35	0.23	66	0.12
Garcia 2007		69	0.38	10	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.12	11	0.57	45	0.26
Garcia 2007b		79	0.31	49	0.00	74	0.05	61	0.05	50	0.06	83	0.05
Gierzod 1998		35	0.47	55	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.43	12	0.60	23	0.51
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.49	41	0.00	25	0.09	22	0.45	6	0.68	20	0.55
Groot 1988		62	0.40	80	0.00	50	0.05	68	0.05	44	0.11	75	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		7	0.53	51	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.58	11	0.61	17	0.59
Hatto 1997		30	0.48	72	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.41	17	0.52	30	0.46
Horowitz 1949		75	0.33	52	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	39	0.22	73	0.09
Indjic 1988		19	0.50	54	0.00	27	0.08	23	0.43	15	0.58	25	0.50
Kapell 1951		13	0.51	34	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.49	11	0.51	24	0.50
Kissin 1993		37	0.47	20	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.18	13	0.66	39	0.34
Kushner 1989		47	0.45	47	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	40	0.15	71	0.10
Luisada 1991		56	0.42	73	0.00	66	0.05	71	0.05	56	0.06	79	0.05
Lushtak 2004		45	0.46	82	0.00	55	0.05	64	0.05	23	0.42	59	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.50	32	0.00	28	0.08	25	0.42	11	0.56	28	0.48
Magaloff 1978		43	0.46	15	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.22	13	0.51	40	0.33
Magin 1975		44	0.46	48	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	17	0.54	48	0.18
Michalowski 1933		76	0.33	30	0.00	76	0.04	78	0.04	27	0.37	65	0.12
Milkina 1970		10	0.52	39	0.00	5	0.21	4	0.66	2	0.81	3	0.73
Mohovich 1999		18	0.50	26	0.00	14	0.08	17	0.52	6	0.69	15	0.60
Moravec 1969		6	0.53	6	0.01	4	0.20	9	0.58	2	0.75	8	0.66
Morozova 2008		48	0.44	79	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.34	63	0.13
Neighaus 1950		38	0.47	43	0.00	42	0.09	39	0.19	7	0.54	41	0.32
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.35	44	0.00	72	0.05	66	0.05	45	0.10	74	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.50	60	0.00	31	0.09	29	0.36	6	0.57	32	0.45
Osinska 1989		2	0.63	2	0.06	2	0.52	2	0.82	2	0.84	1	0.83
Pachmann 1927		67	0.38	74	0.00	75	0.05	67	0.05	31	0.33	61	0.13
Paderewski 1930		81	0.30	77	0.00	79	0.05	56	0.05	40	0.26	68	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		49	0.44	40	0.00	57	0.04	77	0.04	10	0.56	56	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.39	61	0.00	54	0.05	75	0.05	11	0.54	54	0.16
Poblocka 1999		40	0.46	67	0.00	29	0.07	34	0.31	17	0.52	34	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.41	3	0.03	9	0.12	26	0.42	12	0.61	22	0.51
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.37	85	0.00	59	0.04	79	0.04	38	0.23	70	0.10
Rangell 2001		39	0.46	29	0.00	35	0.08	31	0.33	2	0.70	29	0.48
Richter 1976		12	0.51	9	0.01	23	0.10	33	0.32	22	0.55	33	0.42
Rosen 1989		23	0.49	59	0.00	34	0.08	36	0.30	10	0.50	36	0.39
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.31	86	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	51	0.06	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.25	89	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	47	0.07	80	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.24	81	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	40	0.18	78	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.30	87	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	52	0.05	87	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.21	90	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	36	0.17	77	0.06
Rossi 2007		85	0.24	91	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	32	0.29	72	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		41	0.46	17	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.35	8	0.59	31	0.45
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.51	24	0.00	10	0.15	6	0.62	4	0.73	7	0.67
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.56	16	0.00	3	0.33	3	0.69	7	0.72	4	0.70
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.48	12	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	10	0.53	49	0.18
Shebanova 2002		50	0.44	65	0.00	61	0.06	55	0.06	75	0.05	81	0.05
Smith 1975		32	0.48	21	0.00	39	0.07	40	0.19	5	0.68	38	0.36
Sokolov 2002		33	0.47	36	0.00	33	0.08	32	0.32	3	0.72	27	0.48
Sztompka 1959		24	0.49	22	0.00	12	0.10	20	0.48	9	0.67	18	0.57
Tomsic 1995		51	0.43	18	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	7	0.57	44	0.26
Uninsky 1932		29	0.48	13	0.00	7	0.12	14	0.54	9	0.68	14	0.61
Uninsky 1971		15	0.51	23	0.00	22	0.10	15	0.54	4	0.68	13	0.61
Wasowski 1980		28	0.48	28	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.30	18	0.52	35	0.39
Zak 1937		20	0.50	4	0.01	18	0.10	21	0.46	5	0.68	19	0.56
Zak 1951		27	0.49	7	0.01	21	0.10	28	0.38	7	0.64	26	0.49
Average		1	0.74	1	0.79	1	0.78	1	0.92	2	0.75	2	0.83
Random 1		90	-0.04	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	64	0.04	89	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.06	42	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	32	0.21	82	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).