Tomsic 1995

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		58	0.32	71	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	50	0.05	70	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.35	2	0.06	4	0.17	14	0.46	26	0.47	7	0.46
Ashkenazy 1981		28	0.38	37	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.18	56	0.07	48	0.11
Bacha 2000		45	0.34	44	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	31	0.25	44	0.11
Badura 1965		51	0.33	32	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	18	0.41	35	0.16
Barbosa 1983		50	0.33	33	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.19	49	0.08	43	0.12
Biret 1990		47	0.33	68	0.00	58	0.04	75	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.04
Blet 2003		38	0.36	59	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	32	0.32	34	0.16
Block 1995		31	0.38	45	0.00	16	0.11	19	0.41	31	0.31	15	0.36
Blumental 1952		49	0.33	46	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.05	79	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.39	16	0.01	10	0.11	17	0.43	42	0.17	24	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.25	34	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	61	0.06	65	0.05
Bunin 1987		48	0.33	65	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.19	31	0.29	28	0.23
Bunin 1987b		46	0.34	23	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.23	28	0.39	21	0.30
Chiu 1999		67	0.29	72	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	68	0.04	73	0.04
Cohen 1997		34	0.37	7	0.02	36	0.05	39	0.19	19	0.56	18	0.33
Cortot 1951		86	0.16	66	0.00	84	0.04	82	0.04	72	0.03	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		41	0.35	26	0.00	49	0.06	54	0.06	43	0.11	58	0.08
Czerny 1949		61	0.32	80	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	37	0.32	40	0.13
Czerny 1990		39	0.36	14	0.01	57	0.06	56	0.06	79	0.04	71	0.05
Duchoud 2007		56	0.32	12	0.01	33	0.06	34	0.22	16	0.46	19	0.32
Ezaki 2006		3	0.49	5	0.03	2	0.23	2	0.73	8	0.67	1	0.70
Falvay 1989		2	0.49	3	0.06	3	0.35	3	0.70	5	0.62	2	0.66
Farrell 1958		74	0.26	9	0.02	34	0.05	45	0.10	41	0.14	42	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.26	79	0.00	68	0.05	66	0.05	33	0.42	38	0.14
Fliere 1977		23	0.39	57	0.00	41	0.08	35	0.20	86	0.03	55	0.08
Fou 1978		26	0.38	64	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.25	53	0.05	45	0.11
Francois 1956		69	0.28	81	0.00	64	0.06	55	0.06	37	0.18	52	0.10
Friedman 1923		87	0.15	84	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		88	0.15	77	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1930		78	0.23	41	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Garcia 2007		44	0.34	21	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.30	17	0.46	14	0.37
Garcia 2007b		30	0.38	28	0.00	31	0.05	31	0.24	25	0.42	20	0.32
Gierzod 1998		35	0.37	20	0.00	9	0.11	16	0.43	34	0.26	17	0.33
Gornostaeva 1994		40	0.35	73	0.00	51	0.08	48	0.08	55	0.05	62	0.06
Groot 1988		12	0.42	15	0.01	15	0.11	11	0.49	29	0.36	12	0.42
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.43	10	0.01	14	0.12	7	0.57	45	0.12	25	0.26
Hatto 1993		14	0.41	27	0.00	18	0.10	12	0.48	47	0.08	32	0.20
Hatto 1997		9	0.42	35	0.00	12	0.12	9	0.55	23	0.37	8	0.45
Horowitz 1949		72	0.26	36	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	63	0.04	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		6	0.44	18	0.00	13	0.13	8	0.55	26	0.40	6	0.47
Kapell 1951		13	0.42	30	0.00	21	0.08	22	0.39	40	0.11	30	0.21
Kissin 1993		18	0.40	47	0.00	22	0.09	23	0.39	29	0.49	9	0.44
Kushner 1989		4	0.46	13	0.01	7	0.13	4	0.62	32	0.29	11	0.42
Luisada 1991		36	0.36	63	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.19	43	0.12	36	0.15
Lushtak 2004		53	0.32	54	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.27	34	0.17	31	0.21
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.44	29	0.00	8	0.17	6	0.57	24	0.45	5	0.51
Magaloff 1978		60	0.32	52	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	84	0.03	82	0.03
Magin 1975		29	0.38	43	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.14	43	0.17	37	0.15
Michalowski 1933		84	0.17	74	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Milkina 1970		32	0.37	56	0.00	19	0.09	15	0.45	30	0.41	10	0.43
Mohovich 1999		10	0.42	19	0.00	5	0.22	10	0.54	18	0.54	4	0.54
Moravec 1969		8	0.43	25	0.00	24	0.11	21	0.39	30	0.32	16	0.35
Morozova 2008		17	0.40	4	0.04	6	0.19	5	0.59	16	0.51	3	0.55
Neighaus 1950		54	0.32	60	0.00	65	0.08	49	0.08	69	0.04	63	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.28	69	0.00	72	0.06	53	0.06	76	0.04	67	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		37	0.36	51	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.20	52	0.05	50	0.10
Osinska 1989		33	0.37	48	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.14	64	0.05	56	0.08
Pachmann 1927		66	0.30	61	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	36	0.19	49	0.10
Paderewski 1930		80	0.22	76	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	60	0.05	77	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		57	0.32	88	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.05	64	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.32	50	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.04
Poblocka 1999		43	0.35	53	0.00	50	0.07	52	0.07	62	0.05	60	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		63	0.31	49	0.00	55	0.05	65	0.05	56	0.06	68	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		83	0.19	85	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Rangell 2001		52	0.33	31	0.00	47	0.08	50	0.08	38	0.26	39	0.14
Richter 1976		20	0.40	8	0.02	27	0.07	33	0.22	49	0.06	46	0.11
Rosen 1989		21	0.40	42	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.42	34	0.18	23	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.19	82	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	72	0.04	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.24	75	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	37	0.28	47	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.22	78	0.00	77	0.04	79	0.04	41	0.17	59	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.28	58	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	50	0.06	72	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.20	83	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		76	0.24	38	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	42	0.18	57	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.31	55	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	58	0.04	66	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		16	0.41	6	0.03	20	0.09	24	0.37	41	0.21	22	0.28
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.41	24	0.00	11	0.11	13	0.47	62	0.06	33	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		85	0.16	62	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	78	0.03	89	0.02
Shebanova 2002		11	0.42	89	0.00	23	0.10	20	0.40	45	0.15	27	0.24
Smith 1975		68	0.29	39	0.00	75	0.05	64	0.05	64	0.04	74	0.04
Sokolov 2002		24	0.39	11	0.01	26	0.07	27	0.30	18	0.48	13	0.38
Sztompka 1959		27	0.38	40	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.13	53	0.06	53	0.09
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		55	0.32	87	0.00	53	0.08	47	0.08	52	0.05	61	0.06
Uninsky 1971		25	0.39	22	0.00	25	0.08	25	0.34	44	0.14	29	0.22
Wasowski 1980		19	0.40	17	0.00	35	0.06	29	0.26	53	0.06	41	0.12
Zak 1937		65	0.31	70	0.00	67	0.04	78	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04
Zak 1951		62	0.31	86	0.00	66	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.06	69	0.05
Average		1	0.56	1	0.60	1	0.59	1	0.84	47	0.07	26	0.24
Random 1		90	0.00	90	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	5	0.49	51	0.10
Random 2		89	0.04	67	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	14	0.41	54	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01

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).