Brailowsky 1960

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		32	0.51	79	0.00	46	0.10	45	0.10	79	0.03	53	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		5	0.62	10	0.02	11	0.14	10	0.63	46	0.05	23	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.45	29	0.00	52	0.05	69	0.05	77	0.03	72	0.04
Bacha 2000		28	0.52	76	0.00	25	0.08	44	0.17	52	0.05	39	0.09
Badura 1965		75	0.39	20	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	85	0.03	84	0.03
Barbosa 1983		11	0.59	3	0.16	3	0.23	5	0.69	14	0.54	2	0.61
Biret 1990		13	0.58	49	0.00	15	0.16	14	0.54	48	0.06	25	0.18
Blet 2003		48	0.47	41	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.04	51	0.05
Block 1995		16	0.56	4	0.09	7	0.16	8	0.66	14	0.47	4	0.56
Blumental 1952		12	0.58	7	0.03	8	0.22	6	0.67	50	0.05	24	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.44	83	0.00	69	0.06	48	0.06	79	0.04	54	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		82	0.31	84	0.00	78	0.04	80	0.04	80	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		83	0.29	85	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		27	0.52	71	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.22	50	0.06	36	0.11
Cohen 1997		78	0.35	36	0.00	76	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.04	73	0.04
Cortot 1951		68	0.41	72	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.03	75	0.04
Csalog 1996		70	0.40	56	0.00	66	0.05	64	0.05	60	0.05	50	0.05
Czerny 1949		64	0.42	62	0.00	73	0.05	67	0.05	85	0.03	71	0.04
Czerny 1990		15	0.57	58	0.00	17	0.18	16	0.53	57	0.05	26	0.16
Duchoud 2007		85	0.27	63	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Ezaki 2006		9	0.61	16	0.01	13	0.14	13	0.60	41	0.14	17	0.29
Falvay 1989		3	0.63	12	0.01	9	0.15	7	0.66	20	0.47	3	0.56
Farrell 1958		53	0.46	69	0.00	58	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.05	46	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		19	0.55	11	0.01	21	0.10	20	0.46	23	0.39	12	0.42
Fliere 1977		1	0.65	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.78	37	0.19	14	0.38
Fou 1978		18	0.55	37	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.41	68	0.04	31	0.13
Francois 1956		71	0.40	70	0.00	74	0.05	55	0.05	86	0.03	76	0.04
Friedman 1923		40	0.49	59	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	67	0.05	57	0.05
Friedman 1923b		49	0.47	51	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	48	0.06	45	0.06
Friedman 1930		47	0.47	88	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	66	0.04	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		81	0.32	64	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		66	0.42	52	0.00	55	0.04	76	0.04	47	0.05	77	0.04
Gierzod 1998		36	0.50	53	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.23	84	0.03	44	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		26	0.53	77	0.00	45	0.09	46	0.09	78	0.03	55	0.05
Groot 1988		10	0.59	8	0.03	6	0.16	9	0.66	13	0.43	6	0.53
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.55	18	0.01	26	0.08	26	0.40	62	0.05	30	0.14
Hatto 1993		45	0.48	39	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05
Hatto 1997		43	0.48	86	0.00	57	0.04	78	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04
Horowitz 1949		37	0.50	5	0.06	19	0.10	22	0.45	32	0.36	13	0.40
Indjic 1988		44	0.48	43	0.00	56	0.04	77	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.04
Kapell 1951		41	0.48	47	0.00	43	0.08	41	0.21	78	0.04	41	0.09
Kissin 1993		69	0.41	57	0.00	71	0.05	62	0.05	84	0.03	64	0.04
Kushner 1989		24	0.53	73	0.00	36	0.08	30	0.32	57	0.05	32	0.13
Luisada 1991		6	0.62	6	0.04	4	0.24	3	0.77	22	0.34	7	0.51
Lushtak 2004		17	0.55	13	0.01	16	0.17	18	0.48	40	0.14	20	0.26
Malcuzynski 1961		67	0.41	31	0.00	68	0.06	52	0.06	79	0.03	61	0.04
Magaloff 1978		8	0.61	38	0.00	14	0.11	15	0.54	22	0.32	11	0.42
Magin 1975		39	0.49	32	0.00	35	0.07	31	0.31	85	0.03	37	0.10
Michalowski 1933		79	0.34	80	0.00	80	0.04	79	0.04	78	0.03	82	0.03
Milkina 1970		14	0.57	74	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.45	71	0.05	27	0.15
Mohovich 1999		4	0.63	9	0.02	5	0.15	4	0.70	24	0.44	5	0.55
Moravec 1969		30	0.51	27	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.28	29	0.28	18	0.28
Morozova 2008		63	0.42	81	0.00	63	0.06	49	0.06	76	0.03	67	0.04
Neighaus 1950		57	0.45	45	0.00	64	0.05	70	0.05	79	0.04	74	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.45	19	0.00	32	0.09	37	0.23	75	0.03	43	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		55	0.46	87	0.00	60	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.04	63	0.04
Osinska 1989		20	0.55	25	0.00	29	0.10	29	0.36	75	0.04	35	0.12
Pachmann 1927		80	0.33	75	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		86	0.24	60	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	66	0.04	81	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.44	26	0.00	67	0.05	61	0.05	63	0.04	58	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		87	0.23	89	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		22	0.54	17	0.01	10	0.12	12	0.62	57	0.05	21	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		46	0.48	54	0.00	33	0.06	38	0.23	67	0.04	38	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		7	0.62	15	0.01	12	0.15	11	0.62	51	0.05	22	0.18
Rangell 2001		84	0.28	61	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Richter 1976		76	0.38	65	0.00	75	0.06	50	0.06	72	0.04	48	0.05
Rosen 1989		25	0.53	66	0.00	22	0.10	27	0.38	69	0.05	29	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		29	0.51	14	0.01	20	0.12	17	0.49	16	0.52	8	0.50
Rosenthal 1931		34	0.50	21	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.41	9	0.58	9	0.49
Rosenthal 1931b		50	0.47	33	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.28	15	0.50	15	0.37
Rosenthal 1931c		54	0.46	30	0.00	39	0.07	36	0.26	22	0.41	16	0.33
Rosenthal 1931d		33	0.50	48	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.41	12	0.58	10	0.49
Rossi 2007		77	0.36	90	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.47	22	0.00	44	0.09	43	0.18	55	0.05	40	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.48	28	0.00	18	0.16	19	0.47	39	0.17	19	0.28
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.53	40	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.29	49	0.07	28	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.39	50	0.00	72	0.05	60	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Shebanova 2002		35	0.50	34	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.27	50	0.06	33	0.13
Smith 1975		2	0.64	2	0.19	2	0.21	2	0.77	7	0.54	1	0.64
Sokolov 2002		72	0.40	82	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.04	59	0.04
Sztompka 1959		38	0.50	23	0.00	30	0.07	42	0.19	74	0.04	42	0.09
Tomsic 1995		73	0.39	67	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	65	0.05	62	0.04
Uninsky 1932		58	0.45	44	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	71	0.04	70	0.04
Uninsky 1971		65	0.42	46	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	71	0.05	49	0.05
Wasowski 1980		31	0.51	35	0.00	31	0.06	28	0.36	68	0.04	34	0.12
Zak 1937		52	0.47	78	0.00	54	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.05	60	0.04
Zak 1951		56	0.45	24	0.00	59	0.05	68	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.05
Random 1		90	-0.17	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	83	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		88	-0.03	55	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	25	0.27	52	0.05
Random 3		89	-0.08	42	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	57	0.04	85	0.03

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).