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		32	0.51	37	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	88	0.02	66	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.50	65	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.28	84	0.03	36	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.39	35	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.02	80	0.03
Bacha 2000		58	0.40	45	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.22	80	0.03	38	0.08
Badura 1965		73	0.36	27	0.00	72	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.04	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		62	0.39	71	0.00	15	0.10	30	0.33	44	0.08	16	0.16
Biret 1990		36	0.50	53	0.00	19	0.13	17	0.47	59	0.04	22	0.14
Blet 2003		38	0.50	47	0.00	45	0.08	49	0.08	74	0.03	52	0.05
Block 1995		9	0.60	11	0.02	11	0.13	16	0.49	29	0.18	13	0.30
Blumental 1952		54	0.43	32	0.00	31	0.10	31	0.32	66	0.04	34	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		28	0.53	16	0.01	52	0.07	50	0.07	62	0.05	46	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		41	0.49	68	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.24	82	0.03	39	0.08
Bunin 1987		86	0.28	23	0.01	84	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.02	87	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.27	20	0.01	83	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.02	83	0.02
Chiu 1999		53	0.44	49	0.00	37	0.05	39	0.17	79	0.03	44	0.07
Cohen 1997		81	0.30	50	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	37	0.17	28	0.13
Cortot 1951		55	0.42	41	0.00	70	0.07	51	0.07	81	0.03	55	0.05
Csalog 1996		25	0.54	10	0.02	13	0.12	9	0.56	10	0.41	5	0.48
Czerny 1949		75	0.34	77	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		18	0.56	61	0.00	32	0.08	32	0.31	67	0.03	35	0.10
Duchoud 2007		72	0.36	64	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.02	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		31	0.51	43	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.16	66	0.04	37	0.08
Falvay 1989		1	0.73	1	0.30	1	0.30	1	0.67	1	0.64	1	0.65
Farrell 1958		11	0.59	44	0.00	10	0.19	11	0.53	33	0.23	12	0.35
Ferenczy 1958		52	0.44	46	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.03	75	0.03
Fliere 1977		39	0.49	38	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	87	0.02	57	0.04
Fou 1978		19	0.55	21	0.01	14	0.09	10	0.54	53	0.04	17	0.15
Francois 1956		24	0.55	39	0.00	27	0.09	24	0.41	54	0.05	23	0.14
Friedman 1923		83	0.29	86	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Friedman 1923b		84	0.29	78	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		76	0.32	54	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03
Garcia 2007		51	0.44	59	0.00	55	0.06	57	0.06	70	0.03	67	0.04
Garcia 2007b		56	0.42	72	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	85	0.02	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		29	0.52	55	0.00	47	0.09	45	0.09	83	0.03	53	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		26	0.54	56	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.16	87	0.02	47	0.06
Groot 1988		2	0.68	8	0.03	4	0.21	5	0.61	12	0.47	4	0.54
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.48	28	0.00	50	0.07	53	0.07	62	0.05	48	0.06
Hatto 1993		82	0.30	60	0.00	74	0.05	63	0.05	86	0.03	70	0.04
Hatto 1997		78	0.32	69	0.00	76	0.05	59	0.05	86	0.03	65	0.04
Horowitz 1949		65	0.38	51	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.04
Indjic 1988		77	0.32	73	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	86	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		34	0.50	87	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.19	85	0.02	45	0.06
Kissin 1993		10	0.60	17	0.01	23	0.11	19	0.44	55	0.04	24	0.13
Kushner 1989		8	0.60	26	0.00	18	0.10	12	0.52	72	0.04	20	0.14
Luisada 1991		37	0.50	79	0.00	26	0.09	28	0.35	75	0.04	29	0.12
Lushtak 2004		14	0.58	6	0.05	9	0.16	14	0.52	57	0.04	21	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.41	42	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	85	0.03	62	0.04
Magaloff 1978		27	0.54	52	0.00	21	0.10	20	0.43	52	0.06	15	0.16
Magin 1975		46	0.47	63	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	72	0.03	61	0.04
Michalowski 1933		79	0.32	88	0.00	78	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Milkina 1970		4	0.64	7	0.05	3	0.16	4	0.64	28	0.29	7	0.43
Mohovich 1999		3	0.68	2	0.12	2	0.21	2	0.66	21	0.44	3	0.54
Moravec 1969		59	0.40	70	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	56	0.04
Morozova 2008		40	0.49	25	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.20	76	0.03	41	0.08
Neighaus 1950		48	0.46	13	0.01	56	0.05	61	0.05	60	0.05	54	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.40	30	0.00	73	0.05	64	0.05	61	0.04	60	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.45	33	0.00	48	0.07	52	0.07	67	0.04	51	0.05
Osinska 1989		5	0.62	57	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.52	56	0.05	14	0.16
Pachmann 1927		20	0.55	12	0.02	38	0.05	42	0.12	30	0.18	18	0.15
Paderewski 1930		30	0.51	76	0.00	33	0.08	36	0.22	76	0.03	40	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		22	0.55	29	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.41	76	0.03	31	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		23	0.55	62	0.00	12	0.15	18	0.45	24	0.35	9	0.40
Poblocka 1999		49	0.45	24	0.01	57	0.06	56	0.06	82	0.03	58	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.50	66	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.36	66	0.04	30	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.39	80	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	84	0.03	59	0.04
Rangell 2001		42	0.48	9	0.03	7	0.13	25	0.41	20	0.36	10	0.38
Richter 1976		85	0.29	22	0.01	81	0.02	83	0.02	80	0.02	84	0.02
Rosen 1989		13	0.58	18	0.01	20	0.17	8	0.56	78	0.03	26	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.36	75	0.00	67	0.06	58	0.06	84	0.02	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.38	81	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.37	84	0.00	65	0.03	76	0.03	56	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.37	89	0.00	62	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.37	90	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.05	69	0.04
Rossi 2007		44	0.47	14	0.01	16	0.10	26	0.40	21	0.34	11	0.37
Rubinstein 1939		15	0.58	4	0.06	8	0.13	7	0.57	21	0.30	8	0.41
Rubinstein 1952		6	0.62	5	0.06	5	0.19	3	0.65	5	0.54	2	0.59
Rubinstein 1966		16	0.58	3	0.08	6	0.15	6	0.60	21	0.37	6	0.47
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.31	82	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Shebanova 2002		12	0.59	15	0.01	28	0.08	29	0.34	52	0.05	25	0.13
Smith 1975		7	0.61	19	0.01	22	0.12	15	0.50	65	0.04	19	0.14
Sokolov 2002		61	0.40	36	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	56	0.04	43	0.07
Sztompka 1959		47	0.46	34	0.00	51	0.08	48	0.08	78	0.03	50	0.05
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		74	0.34	85	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Uninsky 1971		66	0.38	74	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		45	0.47	31	0.00	53	0.06	54	0.06	69	0.05	49	0.05
Zak 1937		17	0.56	67	0.00	25	0.14	22	0.42	85	0.03	32	0.11
Zak 1951		21	0.55	40	0.00	24	0.12	21	0.43	84	0.03	33	0.11
Random 1		89	-0.11	58	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	16	0.30	42	0.08
Random 2		90	-0.30	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		88	0.10	48	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	2	0.60	27	0.13

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).