Neighaus 1950

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		25	0.40	10	0.01	9	0.14	11	0.50	10	0.57	9	0.53
Anderszewski 2003		73	0.29	87	0.00	61	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05	68	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		16	0.42	59	0.00	22	0.10	17	0.45	23	0.47	13	0.46
Bacha 2000		75	0.28	68	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.07	64	0.05
Badura 1965		82	0.24	55	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.03
Barbosa 1983		52	0.34	64	0.00	52	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.07	67	0.05
Biret 1990		35	0.37	43	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.23	34	0.35	29	0.28
Blet 2003		7	0.45	12	0.01	3	0.18	6	0.57	5	0.66	3	0.61
Block 1995		40	0.36	5	0.02	14	0.07	29	0.32	34	0.26	27	0.29
Blumental 1952		86	0.20	80	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.04	89	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		2	0.48	16	0.01	5	0.19	3	0.64	19	0.54	6	0.59
Brailowsky 1960		76	0.28	91	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.13	54	0.07
Bunin 1987		74	0.28	66	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04
Bunin 1987b		79	0.27	69	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.03	82	0.03
Chiu 1999		46	0.35	27	0.00	50	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.04
Cohen 1997		50	0.34	33	0.00	28	0.07	39	0.20	31	0.47	25	0.31
Cortot 1951		55	0.33	24	0.00	25	0.08	34	0.25	17	0.51	22	0.36
Csalog 1996		67	0.31	75	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		24	0.40	58	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.31	23	0.57	17	0.42
Czerny 1990		51	0.34	38	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	67	0.04	78	0.04
Duchoud 2007		56	0.33	17	0.01	51	0.04	62	0.04	31	0.30	46	0.11
Ezaki 2006		54	0.34	81	0.00	58	0.06	47	0.06	55	0.07	57	0.06
Falvay 1989		69	0.30	72	0.00	76	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04
Farrell 1958		43	0.36	89	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	44	0.13	51	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.22	37	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	44	0.19	53	0.08
Fliere 1977		26	0.40	28	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.39	60	0.05	36	0.14
Fou 1978		48	0.35	39	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	57	0.05	52	0.08
Francois 1956		13	0.43	4	0.02	10	0.12	9	0.53	8	0.72	2	0.62
Friedman 1923		10	0.44	19	0.00	6	0.22	4	0.61	14	0.60	4	0.60
Friedman 1923b		6	0.46	2	0.02	2	0.28	2	0.64	8	0.68	1	0.66
Friedman 1930		28	0.39	41	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.19	30	0.34	31	0.25
Garcia 2007		78	0.27	36	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	58	0.05	87	0.03
Garcia 2007b		81	0.26	56	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	59	0.05	80	0.04
Gierzod 1998		45	0.35	50	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	60	0.06	63	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		17	0.42	23	0.00	24	0.10	20	0.42	23	0.48	14	0.45
Groot 1988		34	0.37	29	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.36	51	0.05	40	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.47	22	0.00	8	0.16	7	0.54	39	0.19	24	0.32
Hatto 1993		27	0.39	78	0.00	17	0.07	25	0.37	37	0.18	30	0.26
Hatto 1997		42	0.36	62	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.20	53	0.05	47	0.10
Horowitz 1949		71	0.29	65	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	55	0.05	75	0.04
Indjic 1988		37	0.37	86	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.23	56	0.06	42	0.12
Kapell 1951		66	0.31	88	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	56	0.06	66	0.05
Kissin 1993		30	0.38	15	0.01	32	0.09	28	0.33	35	0.42	20	0.37
Kushner 1989		53	0.34	82	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.04	74	0.04
Luisada 1991		47	0.35	53	0.00	56	0.05	50	0.05	47	0.08	59	0.06
Lushtak 2004		38	0.37	42	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.18	42	0.08	44	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		64	0.31	83	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.03	83	0.03
Magaloff 1978		21	0.41	45	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.37	31	0.28	23	0.32
Magin 1975		65	0.31	26	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.04	81	0.03
Michalowski 1933		72	0.29	31	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	41	0.17	56	0.07
Milkina 1970		58	0.32	14	0.01	47	0.05	51	0.05	47	0.08	61	0.06
Mohovich 1999		44	0.36	76	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.25	44	0.09	35	0.15
Moravec 1969		68	0.30	40	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	46	0.07	58	0.06
Morozova 2008		32	0.38	6	0.01	34	0.07	32	0.25	50	0.06	43	0.12
Neighaus 1950		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.29	51	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	50	0.05	65	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		4	0.47	25	0.00	4	0.17	13	0.50	23	0.33	18	0.41
Osinska 1989		9	0.44	71	0.00	20	0.07	18	0.44	30	0.33	19	0.38
Pachmann 1927		41	0.36	49	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.19	24	0.43	26	0.29
Paderewski 1930		33	0.37	13	0.01	18	0.07	22	0.41	7	0.64	11	0.51
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.37	63	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	30	0.28	39	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		49	0.34	18	0.01	67	0.04	71	0.04	42	0.13	55	0.07
Poblocka 1999		60	0.32	30	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.05	60	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		20	0.41	11	0.01	15	0.09	14	0.49	16	0.56	10	0.52
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.26	79	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	75	0.03	71	0.04
Rangell 2001		15	0.43	7	0.01	11	0.10	8	0.53	11	0.55	8	0.54
Richter 1976		23	0.40	21	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.17	70	0.05	49	0.09
Rosen 1989		11	0.44	48	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.44	27	0.29	21	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.32	85	0.00	64	0.05	55	0.05	30	0.42	37	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.18	67	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	59	0.05	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.22	34	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	46	0.08	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.32	46	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	25	0.38	38	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.18	84	0.00	88	0.03	73	0.03	69	0.04	90	0.03
Rossi 2007		83	0.22	60	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	41	0.20	50	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.32	73	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.04	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		31	0.38	77	0.00	37	0.08	31	0.29	54	0.06	41	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.42	35	0.00	16	0.08	15	0.48	65	0.06	32	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		77	0.28	32	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	85	0.03
Shebanova 2002		12	0.43	74	0.00	23	0.11	21	0.42	54	0.07	33	0.17
Smith 1975		19	0.41	44	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.50	11	0.61	7	0.55
Sokolov 2002		14	0.43	8	0.01	19	0.07	16	0.46	12	0.52	12	0.49
Sztompka 1959		3	0.47	9	0.01	7	0.18	5	0.60	16	0.58	5	0.59
Tomsic 1995		57	0.32	52	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.08	62	0.06
Uninsky 1932		61	0.32	54	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	71	0.04	86	0.03
Uninsky 1971		22	0.41	57	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.37	38	0.21	28	0.28
Wasowski 1980		8	0.45	3	0.02	12	0.13	10	0.51	33	0.36	15	0.43
Zak 1937		29	0.39	20	0.00	40	0.06	35	0.24	45	0.10	34	0.15
Zak 1951		36	0.37	47	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	55	0.05	48	0.09
Average		1	0.61	1	0.74	1	0.73	1	0.88	38	0.21	16	0.43
Random 1		89	0.02	70	0.00	89	0.03	85	0.03	10	0.47	45	0.12
Random 2		90	-0.05	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.05	61	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	40	0.14	69	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).