Harasiewicz 1955

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		4	0.82	20	0.01	10	0.11	9	0.49	12	0.45	11	0.47
Anderszewski 2003		3	0.82	22	0.01	23	0.08	15	0.40	5	0.46	19	0.43
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.73	51	0.00	17	0.06	18	0.38	9	0.47	21	0.42
Bacha 2000		67	0.57	80	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.03	82	0.03
Badura 1965		5	0.81	13	0.01	24	0.10	24	0.32	4	0.60	16	0.44
Barbosa 1983		71	0.56	52	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	55	0.05	78	0.04
Biret 1990		57	0.64	21	0.01	52	0.05	56	0.05	34	0.18	59	0.09
Blet 2003		52	0.65	27	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	52	0.06	71	0.05
Block 1995		33	0.73	46	0.00	33	0.05	42	0.11	3	0.45	37	0.22
Blumental 1952		63	0.60	37	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	33	0.13	62	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		6	0.80	3	0.13	4	0.22	5	0.53	2	0.62	4	0.57
Brailowsky 1960		54	0.65	58	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	51	0.05	73	0.04
Bunin 1987		68	0.56	81	0.00	39	0.04	35	0.15	11	0.49	35	0.27
Bunin 1987b		72	0.55	90	0.00	38	0.04	34	0.16	11	0.49	32	0.28
Chiu 1999		38	0.72	48	0.00	55	0.05	66	0.05	31	0.23	52	0.11
Cohen 1997		82	0.38	63	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		36	0.73	28	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.32	3	0.61	17	0.44
Csalog 1996		83	0.37	18	0.01	67	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.05	79	0.04
Czerny 1949		9	0.78	5	0.06	7	0.12	10	0.45	16	0.51	10	0.48
Czerny 1990		37	0.72	15	0.01	54	0.04	71	0.04	44	0.10	68	0.06
Duchoud 2007		61	0.62	75	0.00	40	0.04	45	0.09	8	0.46	38	0.20
Ezaki 2006		2	0.86	6	0.05	6	0.13	4	0.56	2	0.61	3	0.58
Falvay 1989		78	0.46	14	0.01	87	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.05	74	0.04
Farrell 1958		53	0.65	72	0.00	68	0.04	77	0.04	46	0.11	63	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		43	0.69	32	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	20	0.33	48	0.13
Fliere 1977		7	0.79	30	0.00	11	0.09	11	0.44	19	0.38	22	0.41
Fou 1978		26	0.74	34	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	25	0.30	49	0.12
Francois 1956		70	0.56	44	0.00	76	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.04	81	0.04
Friedman 1923		10	0.78	91	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.18	12	0.52	30	0.31
Friedman 1923b		12	0.77	49	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.22	12	0.54	28	0.34
Friedman 1930		14	0.76	42	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	9	0.54	40	0.19
Garcia 2007		41	0.71	88	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	19	0.38	47	0.15
Garcia 2007b		50	0.66	67	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.12	31	0.28	43	0.18
Gierzod 1998		34	0.73	23	0.01	28	0.10	27	0.31	25	0.34	29	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		58	0.63	68	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	30	0.20	58	0.10
Groot 1988		65	0.60	82	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.26	55	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		27	0.74	43	0.00	45	0.06	41	0.12	32	0.24	45	0.17
Hatto 1997		17	0.76	61	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.12	30	0.25	44	0.17
Horowitz 1949		8	0.79	12	0.02	9	0.14	7	0.50	2	0.59	6	0.54
Indjic 1988		15	0.76	26	0.01	43	0.04	38	0.13	30	0.25	42	0.18
Kapell 1951		56	0.64	4	0.06	5	0.13	6	0.52	2	0.48	8	0.50
Kissin 1993		20	0.76	31	0.00	21	0.09	12	0.43	11	0.49	12	0.46
Kushner 1989		46	0.68	33	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	55	0.05	70	0.05
Luisada 1991		22	0.75	76	0.00	46	0.05	62	0.05	41	0.13	60	0.08
Lushtak 2004		40	0.71	24	0.01	56	0.06	51	0.06	24	0.24	50	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		51	0.65	9	0.03	13	0.09	28	0.30	1	0.62	18	0.43
Magaloff 1978		75	0.49	85	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.04	84	0.03
Magin 1975		42	0.70	36	0.00	15	0.07	20	0.37	15	0.45	23	0.41
Michalowski 1933		48	0.67	64	0.00	37	0.05	33	0.17	15	0.44	34	0.27
Milkina 1970		29	0.74	8	0.03	14	0.08	26	0.32	14	0.48	24	0.39
Mohovich 1999		49	0.66	53	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	39	0.21	54	0.11
Moravec 1969		80	0.44	59	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Morozova 2008		23	0.75	86	0.00	36	0.05	37	0.13	27	0.27	39	0.19
Neighaus 1950		30	0.74	62	0.00	22	0.08	22	0.33	21	0.40	27	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.63	73	0.00	59	0.04	75	0.04	75	0.03	85	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.68	19	0.01	27	0.08	23	0.32	17	0.40	26	0.36
Osinska 1989		21	0.76	29	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.22	27	0.34	33	0.27
Pachmann 1927		60	0.63	77	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	25	0.27	56	0.10
Paderewski 1930		66	0.60	50	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	38	0.14	65	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		28	0.74	87	0.00	53	0.06	48	0.06	35	0.19	51	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.44	38	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.06	69	0.05
Poblocka 1999		35	0.73	10	0.02	8	0.13	8	0.50	8	0.54	7	0.52
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.54	45	0.00	75	0.05	64	0.05	78	0.04	77	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		25	0.74	70	0.00	41	0.05	36	0.14	17	0.35	36	0.22
Rangell 2001		81	0.43	65	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	11	0.41	46	0.16
Richter 1976		24	0.75	11	0.02	20	0.08	16	0.40	5	0.61	9	0.49
Rosen 1989		47	0.67	41	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	36	0.17	57	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.49	39	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	23	0.25	53	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.34	83	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.34	74	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	56	0.05	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		87	0.31	55	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.35	89	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		62	0.62	7	0.03	77	0.04	76	0.04	36	0.15	61	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.53	69	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.05	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		88	0.30	56	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.05	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		69	0.56	40	0.00	30	0.05	44	0.09	64	0.04	66	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		19	0.76	25	0.01	19	0.08	19	0.37	12	0.54	13	0.45
Shebanova 2002		39	0.72	17	0.01	29	0.15	21	0.33	32	0.27	31	0.30
Smith 1975		55	0.64	71	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04
Sokolov 2002		64	0.60	78	0.00	26	0.07	29	0.28	6	0.48	25	0.37
Sztompka 1959		13	0.77	47	0.00	16	0.07	13	0.43	15	0.41	20	0.42
Tomsic 1995		77	0.48	35	0.00	79	0.05	63	0.05	54	0.07	64	0.06
Uninsky 1932		18	0.76	60	0.00	18	0.06	17	0.39	8	0.52	14	0.45
Uninsky 1971		44	0.69	16	0.01	12	0.09	14	0.42	6	0.47	15	0.44
Wasowski 1980		31	0.73	57	0.00	35	0.05	43	0.11	18	0.30	41	0.18
Zak 1937		11	0.78	1	0.20	1	0.20	2	0.58	3	0.64	1	0.61
Zak 1951		16	0.76	54	0.00	2	0.18	3	0.56	3	0.63	2	0.59
Average		1	0.86	2	0.18	3	0.18	1	0.68	11	0.45	5	0.55
Random 1		90	-0.15	84	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	19	0.28	72	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.15	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.13	66	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	19	0.38	67	0.06

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).