Poblocka 1999

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		54	0.35	53	0.00	53	0.06	50	0.06	43	0.14	58	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.41	33	0.00	28	0.09	27	0.45	24	0.49	20	0.47
Ashkenazy 1981		62	0.34	78	0.00	71	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.07	67	0.06
Bacha 2000		85	0.18	44	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02
Badura 1965		69	0.31	54	0.00	70	0.05	66	0.05	42	0.13	64	0.08
Barbosa 1983		7	0.49	27	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.62	10	0.64	6	0.63
Biret 1990		47	0.37	50	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.20	55	0.10
Blet 2003		53	0.36	13	0.01	49	0.06	51	0.06	33	0.30	46	0.13
Block 1995		4	0.51	4	0.02	4	0.32	4	0.69	6	0.68	4	0.68
Blumental 1952		32	0.41	56	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.29	30	0.33	35	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.44	36	0.00	13	0.10	16	0.53	22	0.46	17	0.49
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.49	8	0.01	7	0.16	6	0.64	3	0.77	2	0.70
Bunin 1987		51	0.36	34	0.00	47	0.06	54	0.06	33	0.24	50	0.12
Bunin 1987b		55	0.35	75	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	38	0.21	47	0.12
Chiu 1999		36	0.41	29	0.00	32	0.07	36	0.28	28	0.25	37	0.26
Cohen 1997		78	0.25	38	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		76	0.26	37	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	40	0.16	59	0.09
Csalog 1996		37	0.41	10	0.01	22	0.07	29	0.39	13	0.47	23	0.43
Czerny 1949		71	0.30	88	0.00	77	0.05	63	0.05	60	0.05	73	0.05
Czerny 1990		2	0.55	2	0.04	2	0.45	2	0.76	7	0.78	1	0.77
Duchoud 2007		72	0.30	49	0.00	73	0.08	46	0.08	43	0.09	62	0.08
Ezaki 2006		17	0.45	14	0.01	19	0.08	31	0.35	31	0.42	28	0.38
Falvay 1989		9	0.48	12	0.01	15	0.11	14	0.55	14	0.44	16	0.49
Farrell 1958		45	0.38	23	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.28	20	0.40	33	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.26	79	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	36	0.36	49	0.12
Fliere 1977		3	0.54	15	0.00	3	0.24	3	0.74	14	0.57	5	0.65
Fou 1978		10	0.47	17	0.00	9	0.13	9	0.62	14	0.57	9	0.59
Francois 1956		81	0.24	46	0.00	80	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.04	79	0.04
Friedman 1923		65	0.33	42	0.00	56	0.05	67	0.05	39	0.14	65	0.08
Friedman 1923b		61	0.34	20	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	38	0.23	51	0.12
Friedman 1930		67	0.33	18	0.00	58	0.07	48	0.07	43	0.10	61	0.08
Garcia 2007		70	0.30	59	0.00	67	0.05	68	0.05	41	0.12	63	0.08
Garcia 2007b		66	0.33	39	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.05	80	0.04
Gierzod 1998		48	0.37	51	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	46	0.09	54	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.40	41	0.00	35	0.08	44	0.16	38	0.21	42	0.18
Groot 1988		23	0.45	45	0.00	17	0.09	22	0.50	23	0.38	22	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.46	43	0.00	16	0.09	17	0.52	34	0.31	27	0.40
Hatto 1993		42	0.39	65	0.00	39	0.07	33	0.30	46	0.09	43	0.16
Hatto 1997		49	0.37	21	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.20	43	0.10	44	0.14
Horowitz 1949		58	0.35	66	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	32	0.36	48	0.12
Indjic 1988		46	0.37	85	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.16	49	0.07	52	0.11
Kapell 1951		11	0.47	19	0.00	8	0.16	7	0.63	13	0.48	11	0.55
Kissin 1993		31	0.42	26	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.36	28	0.50	25	0.42
Kushner 1989		15	0.46	30	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.50	37	0.23	32	0.34
Luisada 1991		8	0.49	7	0.02	21	0.07	24	0.48	14	0.53	14	0.50
Lushtak 2004		28	0.43	40	0.00	30	0.13	26	0.46	19	0.51	19	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.39	69	0.00	38	0.09	35	0.29	40	0.18	39	0.23
Magaloff 1978		19	0.45	73	0.00	25	0.10	28	0.43	22	0.39	26	0.41
Magin 1975		60	0.34	52	0.00	72	0.06	57	0.06	69	0.04	70	0.05
Michalowski 1933		80	0.24	84	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.07	72	0.05
Milkina 1970		63	0.34	83	0.00	65	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04
Mohovich 1999		13	0.46	5	0.02	11	0.10	10	0.60	10	0.64	7	0.62
Moravec 1969		29	0.43	61	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.31	25	0.33	34	0.32
Morozova 2008		22	0.45	3	0.02	10	0.10	11	0.60	20	0.49	12	0.54
Neighaus 1950		68	0.32	57	0.00	55	0.05	65	0.05	46	0.07	68	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.26	67	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.04	82	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		57	0.35	62	0.00	63	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.03	84	0.03
Osinska 1989		25	0.44	25	0.00	27	0.09	19	0.51	27	0.42	21	0.46
Pachmann 1927		73	0.28	72	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.07	71	0.05
Paderewski 1930		88	0.11	22	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.36	31	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	53	0.06	69	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.22	89	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03
Poblocka 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.34	48	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	42	0.15	57	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		24	0.45	35	0.00	12	0.09	12	0.59	7	0.61	8	0.60
Rangell 2001		43	0.38	76	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	33	0.39	45	0.14
Richter 1976		12	0.47	60	0.00	14	0.11	13	0.59	18	0.59	10	0.59
Rosen 1989		27	0.44	55	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.49	21	0.38	24	0.43
Rosenthal 1930		52	0.36	58	0.00	52	0.06	53	0.06	18	0.59	41	0.19
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.23	80	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	41	0.20	60	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.17	87	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	57	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.25	91	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	49	0.06	74	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.20	90	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	54	0.05	78	0.04
Rossi 2007		87	0.15	70	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.34	63	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	70	0.04	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.45	24	0.00	29	0.10	18	0.52	26	0.49	15	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.45	47	0.00	18	0.08	15	0.54	29	0.27	29	0.38
Schilhawsky 1960		41	0.39	9	0.01	31	0.09	37	0.28	11	0.46	31	0.36
Shebanova 2002		16	0.46	32	0.00	20	0.08	25	0.46	37	0.29	30	0.37
Smith 1975		44	0.38	16	0.00	60	0.06	56	0.06	41	0.14	56	0.09
Sokolov 2002		75	0.26	71	0.00	76	0.05	69	0.05	80	0.03	75	0.04
Sztompka 1959		5	0.50	6	0.02	5	0.14	5	0.65	6	0.72	3	0.68
Tomsic 1995		56	0.35	77	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	52	0.07	66	0.06
Uninsky 1932		35	0.41	81	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.21	27	0.32	38	0.26
Uninsky 1971		30	0.42	11	0.01	34	0.06	39	0.27	42	0.18	40	0.22
Wasowski 1980		20	0.45	28	0.00	26	0.10	20	0.51	26	0.46	18	0.48
Zak 1937		33	0.41	64	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.25	30	0.30	36	0.27
Zak 1951		39	0.39	68	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	42	0.13	53	0.10
Average		1	0.63	1	0.72	1	0.72	1	0.86	30	0.34	13	0.54
Random 1		90	-0.05	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	62	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.00	86	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	50	0.05	85	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.10	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	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).