Farrell 1958

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		19	0.71	10	0.02	33	0.07	29	0.30	67	0.04	41	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		29	0.67	48	0.00	25	0.08	32	0.27	42	0.16	35	0.21
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.66	26	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.04	76	0.04
Bacha 2000		28	0.67	25	0.01	29	0.08	35	0.22	13	0.39	30	0.29
Badura 1965		67	0.51	73	0.00	85	0.05	64	0.05	74	0.04	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		44	0.64	38	0.00	34	0.06	40	0.17	17	0.33	33	0.24
Biret 1990		3	0.75	3	0.10	2	0.26	4	0.58	5	0.57	4	0.57
Blet 2003		63	0.55	44	0.00	59	0.05	59	0.05	55	0.06	61	0.05
Block 1995		64	0.54	54	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.18	24	0.23	36	0.20
Blumental 1952		17	0.71	81	0.00	27	0.07	15	0.45	28	0.18	31	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		66	0.52	46	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.07	65	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.67	82	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.28	9	0.46	23	0.36
Bunin 1987		87	0.25	58	0.00	88	0.04	76	0.04	74	0.03	87	0.03
Bunin 1987b		88	0.25	71	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		15	0.71	74	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.17	20	0.28	34	0.22
Cohen 1997		57	0.57	59	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	20	0.31	42	0.11
Cortot 1951		53	0.61	27	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	33	0.22	46	0.10
Csalog 1996		86	0.31	87	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	54	0.04	71	0.04
Czerny 1949		62	0.55	15	0.01	51	0.05	58	0.05	69	0.04	74	0.04
Czerny 1990		7	0.73	9	0.02	6	0.11	5	0.55	17	0.36	13	0.44
Duchoud 2007		68	0.51	66	0.00	73	0.03	84	0.03	45	0.10	64	0.05
Ezaki 2006		6	0.74	6	0.03	22	0.07	22	0.39	33	0.21	29	0.29
Falvay 1989		24	0.68	20	0.01	31	0.06	33	0.26	4	0.56	22	0.38
Farrell 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.46	88	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		34	0.65	77	0.00	48	0.12	45	0.12	66	0.04	54	0.07
Fou 1978		14	0.71	60	0.00	15	0.08	9	0.51	22	0.33	15	0.41
Francois 1956		38	0.65	14	0.01	18	0.08	26	0.33	13	0.47	21	0.39
Friedman 1923		46	0.63	51	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	78	0.03	78	0.04
Friedman 1923b		45	0.64	40	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1930		50	0.62	36	0.00	67	0.03	85	0.03	61	0.05	73	0.04
Garcia 2007		12	0.72	16	0.01	14	0.07	6	0.53	10	0.52	5	0.52
Garcia 2007b		41	0.65	17	0.01	21	0.07	19	0.43	20	0.41	14	0.42
Gierzod 1998		47	0.63	56	0.00	46	0.09	47	0.09	54	0.05	55	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		60	0.56	75	0.00	60	0.07	50	0.07	63	0.04	66	0.05
Groot 1988		8	0.73	7	0.02	4	0.12	3	0.59	3	0.62	2	0.60
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.65	43	0.00	40	0.06	46	0.11	77	0.04	56	0.07
Hatto 1993		33	0.65	72	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04	77	0.04
Hatto 1997		37	0.65	53	0.00	63	0.07	49	0.07	72	0.04	62	0.05
Horowitz 1949		70	0.50	79	0.00	71	0.04	75	0.04	65	0.05	68	0.04
Indjic 1988		35	0.65	91	0.00	61	0.05	61	0.05	72	0.04	70	0.04
Kapell 1951		74	0.47	69	0.00	57	0.06	54	0.06	56	0.05	60	0.05
Kissin 1993		42	0.65	57	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.31	53	0.04	40	0.11
Kushner 1989		22	0.68	24	0.01	26	0.08	14	0.48	25	0.33	17	0.40
Luisada 1991		18	0.71	61	0.00	42	0.07	38	0.19	60	0.05	45	0.10
Lushtak 2004		2	0.77	22	0.01	11	0.07	7	0.52	9	0.37	12	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		73	0.47	49	0.00	70	0.03	88	0.03	59	0.04	81	0.03
Magaloff 1978		11	0.72	31	0.00	5	0.13	11	0.50	1	0.65	3	0.57
Magin 1975		61	0.55	83	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	67	0.04	59	0.05
Michalowski 1933		80	0.41	89	0.00	84	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.03	83	0.03
Milkina 1970		23	0.68	80	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.49	17	0.41	10	0.45
Mohovich 1999		20	0.70	70	0.00	7	0.14	10	0.51	17	0.46	9	0.48
Moravec 1969		65	0.54	55	0.00	55	0.05	63	0.05	23	0.40	39	0.14
Morozova 2008		25	0.68	39	0.00	47	0.08	48	0.08	49	0.05	57	0.06
Neighaus 1950		31	0.66	13	0.01	36	0.06	37	0.19	38	0.13	38	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.59	29	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	80	0.03	67	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		43	0.64	18	0.01	49	0.06	51	0.06	43	0.13	49	0.09
Osinska 1989		4	0.75	1	0.32	1	0.32	2	0.64	4	0.62	1	0.63
Pachmann 1927		71	0.49	34	0.00	81	0.04	71	0.04	47	0.05	69	0.04
Paderewski 1930		52	0.62	67	0.00	35	0.06	27	0.32	17	0.38	25	0.35
Perlemuter 1992		21	0.69	5	0.03	13	0.07	25	0.35	20	0.32	26	0.33
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.57	8	0.02	23	0.07	23	0.35	1	0.66	8	0.48
Poblocka 1999		77	0.42	37	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		48	0.63	33	0.00	20	0.09	30	0.30	12	0.34	27	0.32
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.73	19	0.01	12	0.07	18	0.44	14	0.36	16	0.40
Rangell 2001		83	0.36	41	0.00	39	0.07	44	0.14	30	0.26	37	0.19
Richter 1976		85	0.34	30	0.00	86	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.03	82	0.03
Rosen 1989		49	0.62	90	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.20	69	0.04	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.39	84	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.41	35	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	26	0.28	50	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.42	76	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	23	0.28	44	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.38	42	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	27	0.24	47	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.43	85	0.00	74	0.04	80	0.04	23	0.33	43	0.11
Rossi 2007		16	0.71	23	0.01	24	0.09	17	0.44	4	0.56	6	0.50
Rubinstein 1939		10	0.73	45	0.00	9	0.07	12	0.49	7	0.50	7	0.49
Rubinstein 1952		54	0.59	28	0.00	16	0.09	24	0.35	20	0.44	20	0.39
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.74	11	0.02	10	0.07	16	0.45	10	0.46	11	0.45
Schilhawsky 1960		69	0.50	68	0.00	66	0.04	79	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04
Shebanova 2002		27	0.67	4	0.05	8	0.08	20	0.42	40	0.18	32	0.27
Smith 1975		30	0.66	65	0.00	28	0.07	21	0.40	12	0.39	19	0.39
Sokolov 2002		58	0.57	21	0.01	54	0.06	53	0.06	44	0.11	52	0.08
Sztompka 1959		13	0.72	12	0.01	19	0.08	8	0.52	37	0.17	28	0.30
Tomsic 1995		56	0.59	47	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.23	11	0.53	24	0.35
Uninsky 1932		72	0.48	78	0.00	80	0.05	65	0.05	64	0.05	63	0.05
Uninsky 1971		84	0.34	62	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.04	84	0.03
Wasowski 1980		51	0.62	64	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.05	58	0.05
Zak 1937		39	0.65	32	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.16	57	0.04	53	0.08
Zak 1951		36	0.65	50	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.15	53	0.05	48	0.09
Average		1	0.79	2	0.17	3	0.28	1	0.72	35	0.22	18	0.40
Random 1		91	-0.25	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	63	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.06	63	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	51	0.04	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.15	52	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.05	91	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).