Rabcewiczowa 1932

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		43	0.33	63	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.25	27	0.35	30	0.30
Anderszewski 2003		62	0.29	75	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.13	47	0.07	41	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		81	0.20	42	0.00	82	0.04	72	0.04	69	0.05	76	0.04
Bacha 2000		68	0.28	55	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	72	0.03	65	0.04
Badura 1965		79	0.22	56	0.00	63	0.05	63	0.05	71	0.03	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		35	0.34	46	0.00	28	0.10	25	0.45	42	0.17	32	0.28
Biret 1990		4	0.47	6	0.02	8	0.19	6	0.69	8	0.68	4	0.68
Blet 2003		84	0.18	89	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		33	0.35	50	0.00	34	0.11	29	0.41	38	0.21	31	0.29
Blumental 1952		57	0.30	43	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	68	0.05	54	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.31	73	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	59	0.05	55	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.31	87	0.00	57	0.06	50	0.06	45	0.11	45	0.08
Bunin 1987		55	0.31	24	0.00	61	0.07	48	0.07	47	0.07	50	0.07
Bunin 1987b		59	0.30	19	0.00	62	0.06	51	0.06	58	0.05	59	0.05
Chiu 1999		61	0.29	81	0.00	53	0.06	55	0.06	49	0.06	51	0.06
Cohen 1997		13	0.41	44	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.56	4	0.72	9	0.63
Cortot 1951		31	0.35	9	0.01	25	0.12	34	0.32	10	0.62	23	0.45
Csalog 1996		71	0.27	82	0.00	74	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.05	72	0.04
Czerny 1949		3	0.48	7	0.02	4	0.21	4	0.70	9	0.75	3	0.72
Czerny 1990		58	0.30	79	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.05
Duchoud 2007		69	0.28	66	0.00	70	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.04	86	0.03
Ezaki 2006		5	0.46	3	0.10	3	0.22	9	0.65	9	0.65	5	0.65
Falvay 1989		29	0.36	15	0.01	40	0.08	40	0.22	61	0.05	40	0.10
Farrell 1958		22	0.38	60	0.00	23	0.10	24	0.47	14	0.48	22	0.47
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.34	40	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.26	15	0.69	25	0.42
Fliere 1977		42	0.33	37	0.00	33	0.09	35	0.31	67	0.04	39	0.11
Fou 1978		44	0.33	72	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.13	54	0.05	46	0.08
Francois 1956		26	0.37	22	0.00	18	0.11	21	0.51	13	0.67	13	0.58
Friedman 1923		86	0.14	76	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		87	0.14	80	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1930		78	0.23	35	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.03	85	0.03
Garcia 2007		49	0.31	45	0.00	50	0.06	58	0.06	39	0.16	42	0.10
Garcia 2007b		65	0.29	64	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.05
Gierzod 1998		30	0.36	47	0.00	32	0.11	28	0.42	40	0.15	34	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		1	0.56	2	0.15	2	0.48	2	0.85	3	0.81	1	0.83
Groot 1988		47	0.32	17	0.00	37	0.10	39	0.23	70	0.04	43	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.41	4	0.05	5	0.18	12	0.61	26	0.42	21	0.51
Hatto 1993		63	0.29	83	0.00	60	0.06	53	0.06	78	0.04	63	0.05
Hatto 1997		17	0.40	27	0.00	19	0.10	18	0.55	27	0.31	26	0.41
Horowitz 1949		80	0.22	65	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	59	0.04	81	0.03
Indjic 1988		72	0.26	90	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	82	0.04	71	0.04
Kapell 1951		24	0.37	41	0.00	36	0.12	36	0.31	65	0.05	38	0.12
Kissin 1993		88	0.12	84	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Kushner 1989		32	0.35	48	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.18	74	0.04	47	0.08
Luisada 1991		75	0.25	67	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04	66	0.04
Lushtak 2004		28	0.36	91	0.00	27	0.07	26	0.45	26	0.35	27	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		48	0.32	77	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	56	0.05	48	0.07
Magaloff 1978		20	0.39	11	0.01	26	0.08	33	0.33	44	0.12	36	0.20
Magin 1975		77	0.24	78	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.05	67	0.04
Michalowski 1933		82	0.20	51	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.05	70	0.04
Milkina 1970		21	0.38	34	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.61	26	0.48	16	0.54
Mohovich 1999		12	0.42	25	0.00	10	0.14	11	0.64	19	0.53	12	0.58
Moravec 1969		25	0.37	33	0.00	35	0.12	31	0.39	39	0.19	33	0.27
Morozova 2008		39	0.34	53	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.06	53	0.06
Neighaus 1950		15	0.41	16	0.01	20	0.10	16	0.56	14	0.49	18	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.19	74	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		64	0.29	36	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Osinska 1989		6	0.46	18	0.00	11	0.15	3	0.72	22	0.50	11	0.60
Pachmann 1927		66	0.28	39	0.00	75	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.05	69	0.04
Paderewski 1930		85	0.18	85	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.31	52	0.00	56	0.06	59	0.06	66	0.05	57	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.30	70	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.04	77	0.03
Poblocka 1999		37	0.34	54	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	55	0.06	44	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.34	71	0.00	31	0.10	32	0.37	32	0.31	28	0.34
Rangell 2001		27	0.37	14	0.01	21	0.11	22	0.51	17	0.54	17	0.52
Richter 1976		74	0.25	49	0.00	80	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04	68	0.04
Rosen 1989		19	0.39	58	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.50	33	0.20	29	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		8	0.44	5	0.04	9	0.18	5	0.70	7	0.77	2	0.73
Rosenthal 1931		40	0.34	26	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.44	10	0.72	15	0.56
Rosenthal 1931b		45	0.32	23	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.40	11	0.67	19	0.52
Rosenthal 1931c		16	0.40	12	0.01	13	0.15	14	0.59	9	0.64	10	0.61
Rosenthal 1931d		23	0.37	10	0.01	14	0.15	17	0.55	6	0.76	6	0.65
Rossi 2007		46	0.32	28	0.00	66	0.05	65	0.05	15	0.47	37	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		18	0.39	8	0.02	16	0.11	19	0.54	15	0.49	20	0.51
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.43	29	0.00	6	0.19	7	0.69	10	0.60	7	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.44	13	0.01	7	0.18	8	0.68	20	0.47	14	0.57
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.27	59	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	60	0.05	73	0.04
Shebanova 2002		67	0.28	61	0.00	72	0.05	66	0.05	77	0.05	61	0.05
Smith 1975		9	0.44	30	0.00	12	0.17	10	0.64	7	0.63	8	0.63
Sokolov 2002		36	0.34	68	0.00	52	0.06	60	0.06	53	0.05	58	0.05
Sztompka 1959		41	0.33	20	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	55	0.05	52	0.06
Tomsic 1995		54	0.31	31	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	65	0.05	60	0.05
Uninsky 1932		51	0.31	32	0.00	51	0.06	54	0.06	78	0.03	74	0.04
Uninsky 1971		11	0.42	21	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.53	32	0.35	24	0.43
Wasowski 1980		56	0.31	62	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	75	0.04	56	0.05
Zak 1937		76	0.24	86	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.04	79	0.03
Zak 1951		73	0.25	69	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	83	0.03	80	0.03
Average		2	0.55	1	0.47	1	0.46	1	0.87	53	0.06	35	0.23
Random 1		91	-0.05	38	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	56	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		89	0.04	57	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	33	0.23	49	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.02	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	47	0.05	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).