Random 3

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

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).