Groot 1988

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

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).