Hatto 1997

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		23	0.43	46	0.00	32	0.07	25	0.34	11	0.57	24	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.38	47	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.14	31	0.38	37	0.23
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.40	42	0.00	48	0.04	80	0.04	38	0.22	65	0.09
Bacha 2000		35	0.40	32	0.00	54	0.06	47	0.06	17	0.49	41	0.17
Badura 1965		70	0.32	49	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	37	0.16	67	0.08
Barbosa 1983		13	0.47	68	0.00	16	0.13	11	0.57	12	0.58	12	0.57
Biret 1990		8	0.50	20	0.00	13	0.12	8	0.60	6	0.69	8	0.64
Blet 2003		38	0.39	52	0.00	27	0.08	29	0.30	15	0.49	29	0.38
Block 1995		81	0.27	73	0.00	72	0.04	81	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.04
Blumental 1952		10	0.48	23	0.00	12	0.12	9	0.59	6	0.73	7	0.66
Boshniakovich 1969		72	0.30	27	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	58	0.05	80	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.29	84	0.00	85	0.05	51	0.05	68	0.05	74	0.05
Bunin 1987		55	0.36	78	0.00	24	0.07	36	0.22	17	0.50	31	0.33
Bunin 1987b		57	0.35	79	0.00	25	0.07	37	0.21	15	0.48	32	0.32
Chiu 1999		29	0.41	24	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.11	37	0.17	46	0.14
Cohen 1997		64	0.34	74	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	16	0.58	42	0.17
Cortot 1951		73	0.29	11	0.00	77	0.04	64	0.04	30	0.27	63	0.10
Csalog 1996		61	0.35	31	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.07	79	0.05
Czerny 1949		24	0.43	9	0.00	23	0.08	24	0.35	22	0.60	21	0.46
Czerny 1990		18	0.46	35	0.00	19	0.13	15	0.53	22	0.62	13	0.57
Duchoud 2007		63	0.34	50	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.22	61	0.10
Ezaki 2006		22	0.43	12	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.23	40	0.33	35	0.28
Falvay 1989		7	0.51	6	0.00	14	0.11	18	0.49	9	0.49	17	0.49
Farrell 1958		67	0.34	75	0.00	61	0.06	48	0.06	32	0.23	51	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.35	76	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	20	0.65	40	0.18
Fliere 1977		39	0.39	61	0.00	52	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.03	88	0.03
Fou 1978		36	0.40	63	0.00	46	0.04	63	0.04	50	0.06	76	0.05
Francois 1956		65	0.34	51	0.00	47	0.04	73	0.04	16	0.59	44	0.15
Friedman 1923		79	0.27	25	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.05	87	0.04
Friedman 1923b		83	0.26	80	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.06	85	0.04
Friedman 1930		52	0.36	38	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	34	0.24	56	0.11
Garcia 2007		80	0.27	18	0.00	74	0.05	50	0.05	42	0.10	69	0.07
Garcia 2007b		40	0.39	7	0.00	17	0.15	21	0.46	15	0.62	15	0.53
Gierzod 1998		41	0.39	69	0.00	33	0.08	31	0.26	33	0.28	36	0.27
Gornostaeva 1994		45	0.38	28	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.09	72	0.06
Groot 1988		14	0.47	53	0.00	9	0.12	10	0.57	9	0.56	14	0.56
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.48	39	0.00	15	0.12	17	0.52	27	0.41	22	0.46
Hatto 1993		2	0.88	2	0.12	2	0.95	2	0.98	2	0.98	2	0.98
Hatto 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Horowitz 1949		71	0.31	54	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	28	0.42	49	0.13
Indjic 1988		1	0.91	1	0.86	1	0.85	1	0.99	2	0.99	1	0.99
Kapell 1951		17	0.46	4	0.00	21	0.15	14	0.53	15	0.42	19	0.47
Kissin 1993		51	0.36	81	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.34	50	0.13
Kushner 1989		27	0.42	64	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.14	49	0.07	58	0.10
Luisada 1991		11	0.48	13	0.00	11	0.12	13	0.55	10	0.63	10	0.59
Lushtak 2004		49	0.37	58	0.00	55	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.06	71	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.38	8	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.34	35	0.29	34	0.31
Magaloff 1978		58	0.35	55	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.14	49	0.05	66	0.08
Magin 1975		30	0.41	40	0.00	31	0.07	28	0.31	19	0.50	27	0.39
Michalowski 1933		86	0.21	56	0.00	86	0.05	58	0.05	52	0.06	78	0.05
Milkina 1970		5	0.51	3	0.00	6	0.24	6	0.65	7	0.72	5	0.68
Mohovich 1999		33	0.40	77	0.00	10	0.13	20	0.47	22	0.48	20	0.47
Moravec 1969		28	0.42	59	0.00	36	0.09	32	0.25	19	0.38	33	0.31
Morozova 2008		53	0.36	82	0.00	56	0.04	78	0.04	56	0.05	83	0.04
Neighaus 1950		54	0.36	70	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	38	0.20	62	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		77	0.28	57	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	47	0.06	75	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		37	0.39	10	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	40	0.18	53	0.12
Osinska 1989		15	0.47	16	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.47	24	0.47	18	0.47
Pachmann 1927		87	0.16	85	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	66	0.05	82	0.04
Paderewski 1930		84	0.25	87	0.00	73	0.04	75	0.04	33	0.35	52	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		85	0.24	65	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	47	0.07	73	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.35	66	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	19	0.46	47	0.14
Poblocka 1999		50	0.37	14	0.00	39	0.05	43	0.10	42	0.20	45	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.40	44	0.00	34	0.09	27	0.31	18	0.55	25	0.41
Rachmaninoff 1923		48	0.37	48	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	41	0.19	48	0.13
Rangell 2001		82	0.26	43	0.00	83	0.04	79	0.04	61	0.05	86	0.04
Richter 1976		69	0.32	45	0.00	76	0.04	82	0.04	58	0.06	77	0.05
Rosen 1989		26	0.42	33	0.00	35	0.08	34	0.24	32	0.21	38	0.22
Rosenthal 1930		42	0.39	36	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	27	0.54	43	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.28	83	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	36	0.36	59	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.28	71	0.00	84	0.05	60	0.05	34	0.31	55	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		60	0.35	21	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	26	0.33	57	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.28	67	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	23	0.38	54	0.12
Rossi 2007		88	0.10	88	0.00	89	0.03	88	0.03	82	0.02	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		12	0.47	29	0.00	8	0.14	12	0.56	7	0.60	11	0.58
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.46	72	0.00	7	0.18	7	0.61	8	0.66	9	0.63
Rubinstein 1966		4	0.52	41	0.00	4	0.26	5	0.67	11	0.66	6	0.66
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.34	5	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	39	0.14	68	0.07
Shebanova 2002		31	0.41	30	0.00	22	0.11	22	0.45	29	0.38	26	0.41
Smith 1975		20	0.44	62	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.25	20	0.50	30	0.35
Sokolov 2002		21	0.44	19	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.28	13	0.51	28	0.38
Sztompka 1959		66	0.34	22	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.14	39	0.26	39	0.19
Tomsic 1995		25	0.42	26	0.00	26	0.08	23	0.37	9	0.55	23	0.45
Uninsky 1932		68	0.33	89	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	37	0.17	64	0.09
Uninsky 1971		6	0.51	34	0.00	5	0.17	4	0.70	3	0.69	4	0.69
Wasowski 1980		16	0.47	15	0.00	18	0.13	16	0.52	15	0.53	16	0.52
Zak 1937		44	0.38	90	0.00	67	0.05	49	0.05	50	0.07	70	0.06
Zak 1951		46	0.38	60	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.05	81	0.04
Average		3	0.66	17	0.00	3	0.72	3	0.89	9	0.60	3	0.73
Random 1		90	-0.05	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	75	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.08	37	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	8	0.46	60	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.08	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.03	90	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).