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		16	0.57	80	0.00	33	0.07	26	0.28	41	0.14	38	0.20
Anderszewski 2003		57	0.48	73	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.04	85	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.49	38	0.00	50	0.04	63	0.04	52	0.06	64	0.05
Bacha 2000		58	0.48	59	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	32	0.21	46	0.10
Badura 1965		79	0.42	24	0.01	73	0.03	87	0.03	76	0.04	87	0.03
Barbosa 1983		76	0.42	62	0.00	27	0.05	32	0.21	28	0.41	27	0.29
Biret 1990		4	0.65	5	0.05	4	0.15	4	0.56	11	0.49	5	0.52
Blet 2003		73	0.44	50	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.19	50	0.10
Block 1995		74	0.43	22	0.01	61	0.05	58	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Blumental 1952		1	0.67	1	0.27	1	0.26	5	0.53	5	0.52	4	0.52
Boshniakovich 1969		66	0.46	86	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	89	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.48	51	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	38	0.23	47	0.10
Bunin 1987		85	0.37	41	0.00	84	0.04	72	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.04
Bunin 1987b		86	0.36	54	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	72	0.04	69	0.04
Chiu 1999		41	0.52	63	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.15	18	0.34	32	0.23
Cohen 1997		78	0.42	88	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	17	0.38	44	0.12
Cortot 1951		77	0.42	87	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.05	80	0.04
Csalog 1996		56	0.48	42	0.00	51	0.04	62	0.04	23	0.36	43	0.12
Czerny 1949		50	0.50	45	0.00	60	0.08	45	0.08	66	0.04	59	0.06
Czerny 1990		8	0.60	18	0.01	8	0.13	9	0.49	29	0.37	11	0.43
Duchoud 2007		84	0.37	69	0.00	83	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.05	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		44	0.52	39	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.05	66	0.04
Falvay 1989		27	0.55	30	0.00	17	0.08	19	0.32	24	0.45	18	0.38
Farrell 1958		18	0.56	81	0.00	16	0.12	13	0.42	18	0.45	10	0.43
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.44	43	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	60	0.04	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		12	0.58	37	0.00	13	0.10	8	0.51	39	0.18	25	0.30
Fou 1978		7	0.61	34	0.00	9	0.13	6	0.53	11	0.52	3	0.52
Francois 1956		42	0.52	44	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.20	12	0.54	24	0.33
Friedman 1923		80	0.40	82	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	56	0.05	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		81	0.40	64	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	50	0.06	77	0.04
Friedman 1930		65	0.47	47	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	55	0.05	72	0.04
Garcia 2007		25	0.56	57	0.00	45	0.05	52	0.05	13	0.51	39	0.16
Garcia 2007b		19	0.56	28	0.00	31	0.07	18	0.33	23	0.41	19	0.37
Gierzod 1998		24	0.56	46	0.00	26	0.06	17	0.35	52	0.06	40	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.54	40	0.00	41	0.07	39	0.16	19	0.41	31	0.26
Groot 1988		67	0.46	52	0.00	25	0.06	41	0.12	62	0.05	55	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		47	0.51	20	0.01	48	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.04	81	0.04
Hatto 1993		62	0.47	29	0.00	55	0.05	49	0.05	76	0.03	79	0.04
Hatto 1997		60	0.48	65	0.00	58	0.07	46	0.07	79	0.03	62	0.05
Horowitz 1949		82	0.39	21	0.01	86	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.04	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		59	0.48	60	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.04	61	0.05
Kapell 1951		3	0.65	8	0.04	3	0.12	2	0.62	15	0.41	7	0.50
Kissin 1993		29	0.55	33	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.18	45	0.07	45	0.11
Kushner 1989		2	0.65	3	0.11	2	0.17	1	0.70	8	0.63	1	0.66
Luisada 1991		52	0.49	74	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	57	0.05	67	0.04
Lushtak 2004		23	0.56	55	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.40	20	0.44	12	0.42
Malcuzynski 1961		70	0.44	15	0.01	69	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.03	83	0.03
Magaloff 1978		13	0.58	75	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.24	16	0.37	26	0.30
Magin 1975		35	0.54	16	0.01	18	0.08	14	0.41	29	0.31	20	0.36
Michalowski 1933		48	0.51	7	0.04	43	0.05	42	0.11	22	0.36	36	0.20
Milkina 1970		9	0.59	70	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.28	44	0.15	34	0.20
Mohovich 1999		46	0.51	83	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.06	63	0.05
Moravec 1969		6	0.61	32	0.00	12	0.08	11	0.44	13	0.57	6	0.50
Morozova 2008		26	0.56	35	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.26	33	0.28	28	0.27
Neighaus 1950		55	0.48	58	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	45	0.07	65	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.49	71	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	33	0.21	49	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		64	0.47	48	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.04
Osinska 1989		28	0.55	76	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.17	48	0.08	42	0.12
Pachmann 1927		49	0.50	14	0.01	70	0.03	80	0.03	3	0.59	41	0.13
Paderewski 1930		39	0.53	10	0.02	44	0.04	44	0.08	10	0.52	35	0.20
Perlemuter 1992		22	0.56	12	0.02	19	0.08	21	0.30	10	0.52	16	0.39
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.38	68	0.00	79	0.05	57	0.05	42	0.18	52	0.09
Poblocka 1999		38	0.53	56	0.00	40	0.07	37	0.17	52	0.05	51	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.57	2	0.11	6	0.14	12	0.44	15	0.39	14	0.41
Rangell 2001		71	0.44	25	0.01	72	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.05	78	0.04
Richter 1976		87	0.34	77	0.00	87	0.04	65	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.04
Rosen 1989		36	0.54	89	0.00	35	0.07	27	0.27	37	0.19	33	0.23
Rosenthal 1930		30	0.55	31	0.00	23	0.09	31	0.21	9	0.57	23	0.35
Rosenthal 1931		20	0.56	26	0.01	22	0.08	23	0.29	10	0.57	15	0.41
Rosenthal 1931b		31	0.55	23	0.01	21	0.08	22	0.30	11	0.59	13	0.42
Rosenthal 1931c		17	0.57	4	0.05	14	0.11	16	0.39	10	0.59	8	0.48
Rosenthal 1931d		37	0.53	11	0.02	20	0.06	28	0.26	11	0.60	17	0.39
Rossi 2007		68	0.46	67	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	43	0.13	56	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		32	0.55	27	0.01	28	0.06	20	0.31	17	0.39	21	0.35
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.59	13	0.01	5	0.18	10	0.48	19	0.46	9	0.47
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.54	78	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.19	39	0.22	37	0.20
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.53	49	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.10	48	0.07	54	0.08
Shebanova 2002		10	0.59	19	0.01	10	0.13	7	0.52	36	0.24	22	0.35
Smith 1975		63	0.47	84	0.00	59	0.06	47	0.06	42	0.16	48	0.10
Sokolov 2002		69	0.46	72	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	53	0.05	68	0.04
Sztompka 1959		5	0.63	6	0.05	7	0.14	3	0.61	25	0.50	2	0.55
Tomsic 1995		75	0.42	61	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	36	0.21	53	0.08
Uninsky 1932		15	0.57	17	0.01	36	0.06	33	0.21	31	0.36	29	0.27
Uninsky 1971		51	0.50	36	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.05	60	0.05
Wasowski 1980		21	0.56	9	0.03	11	0.09	24	0.29	36	0.23	30	0.26
Zak 1937		43	0.52	90	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	46	0.08	57	0.06
Zak 1951		45	0.52	66	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	46	0.07	58	0.06
Random 1		90	-0.11	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	45	0.05	88	0.03
Random 2		88	0.00	53	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	40	0.10	73	0.04
Random 3		89	-0.10	79	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.04	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).