Ohlsson 1999

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		8	0.76	17	0.01	9	0.18	8	0.54	18	0.40	11	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		11	0.75	10	0.01	17	0.08	27	0.30	13	0.33	26	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.76	25	0.01	12	0.10	11	0.48	5	0.52	8	0.50
Bacha 2000		41	0.65	70	0.00	60	0.06	46	0.06	25	0.21	50	0.11
Badura 1965		43	0.64	71	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	29	0.41	34	0.21
Barbosa 1983		77	0.46	14	0.01	72	0.03	81	0.03	48	0.07	70	0.05
Biret 1990		52	0.62	79	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.04
Blet 2003		65	0.54	74	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	44	0.09	66	0.06
Block 1995		74	0.50	80	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	31	0.17	60	0.08
Blumental 1952		71	0.50	89	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	57	0.04	79	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		15	0.71	46	0.00	24	0.07	20	0.38	24	0.42	17	0.40
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.63	77	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.14	62	0.07
Bunin 1987		69	0.52	44	0.00	51	0.04	69	0.04	16	0.45	44	0.13
Bunin 1987b		70	0.51	51	0.00	50	0.04	66	0.04	16	0.45	43	0.13
Chiu 1999		58	0.57	76	0.00	37	0.06	42	0.13	33	0.21	37	0.17
Cohen 1997		85	0.38	45	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.04	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		55	0.58	90	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	36	0.16	61	0.08
Csalog 1996		87	0.33	33	0.00	70	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.03	90	0.02
Czerny 1949		18	0.71	86	0.00	18	0.05	19	0.38	29	0.39	19	0.38
Czerny 1990		32	0.67	9	0.01	38	0.05	44	0.11	57	0.04	63	0.07
Duchoud 2007		12	0.74	16	0.01	10	0.14	9	0.54	1	0.68	3	0.61
Ezaki 2006		42	0.64	34	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.04	72	0.04
Falvay 1989		84	0.39	35	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Farrell 1958		45	0.64	27	0.01	16	0.08	43	0.13	51	0.06	57	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.50	83	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	48	0.06	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		5	0.81	5	0.04	5	0.15	7	0.57	16	0.41	9	0.48
Fou 1978		46	0.63	57	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.14	45	0.08	51	0.11
Francois 1956		53	0.61	69	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.20	56	0.10
Friedman 1923		30	0.68	64	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	40	0.28	49	0.12
Friedman 1923b		33	0.67	65	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	40	0.28	47	0.12
Friedman 1930		40	0.65	31	0.00	59	0.06	47	0.06	40	0.26	46	0.12
Garcia 2007		23	0.70	81	0.00	26	0.05	22	0.33	12	0.50	16	0.41
Garcia 2007b		22	0.70	84	0.00	15	0.10	18	0.40	15	0.47	14	0.43
Gierzod 1998		6	0.80	7	0.02	6	0.17	4	0.61	8	0.54	4	0.57
Gornostaeva 1994		36	0.66	19	0.01	55	0.06	48	0.06	28	0.20	52	0.11
Groot 1988		61	0.56	60	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.15	43	0.17	40	0.16
Harasiewicz 1955		28	0.68	20	0.01	20	0.05	17	0.40	23	0.32	23	0.36
Hatto 1993		21	0.71	85	0.00	33	0.11	25	0.32	25	0.30	28	0.31
Hatto 1997		17	0.71	48	0.00	32	0.09	24	0.32	26	0.30	27	0.31
Horowitz 1949		50	0.62	87	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	30	0.40	41	0.14
Indjic 1988		14	0.72	67	0.00	31	0.06	23	0.33	26	0.30	25	0.31
Kapell 1951		54	0.61	55	0.00	25	0.06	31	0.27	29	0.16	33	0.21
Kissin 1993		37	0.65	30	0.00	40	0.08	32	0.25	39	0.13	36	0.18
Kushner 1989		9	0.76	12	0.01	13	0.10	16	0.40	8	0.53	10	0.46
Luisada 1991		34	0.66	15	0.01	41	0.06	40	0.15	65	0.04	58	0.08
Lushtak 2004		38	0.65	41	0.00	44	0.07	39	0.15	30	0.20	39	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		75	0.48	52	0.00	78	0.05	57	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.05
Magaloff 1978		60	0.56	29	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	63	0.05	73	0.04
Magin 1975		13	0.72	24	0.01	3	0.14	6	0.58	11	0.50	6	0.54
Michalowski 1933		27	0.69	61	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.27	13	0.48	21	0.36
Milkina 1970		35	0.66	50	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	47	0.07	65	0.06
Mohovich 1999		20	0.71	22	0.01	34	0.08	26	0.31	12	0.52	18	0.40
Moravec 1969		88	0.28	63	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03
Morozova 2008		29	0.68	38	0.00	27	0.07	21	0.37	22	0.35	22	0.36
Neighaus 1950		1	0.84	2	0.11	2	0.29	2	0.65	2	0.62	2	0.63
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.58	56	0.00	63	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.04	86	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Osinska 1989		26	0.69	36	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.17	47	0.06	53	0.10
Pachmann 1927		59	0.57	54	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	18	0.35	45	0.12
Paderewski 1930		62	0.56	75	0.00	75	0.05	55	0.05	68	0.03	75	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.63	43	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.19	34	0.20	35	0.19
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.55	6	0.04	14	0.09	35	0.17	5	0.47	32	0.28
Poblocka 1999		49	0.62	18	0.01	11	0.16	12	0.46	17	0.45	12	0.45
Rabcewiczowa 1932		67	0.53	37	0.00	71	0.03	87	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		25	0.70	73	0.00	35	0.07	28	0.30	24	0.31	29	0.30
Rangell 2001		72	0.50	68	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	24	0.34	48	0.12
Richter 1976		68	0.53	28	0.01	61	0.05	50	0.05	27	0.41	42	0.14
Rosen 1989		24	0.70	66	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.30	24	0.28	31	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.48	58	0.00	77	0.04	65	0.04	42	0.09	67	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.43	62	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.05	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.43	88	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.06	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.42	8	0.02	84	0.03	86	0.03	57	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.42	72	0.00	86	0.04	67	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.40	21	0.01	87	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.54	47	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.05	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.36	23	0.01	80	0.05	56	0.05	72	0.04	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.62	49	0.00	68	0.03	83	0.03	51	0.05	77	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.67	11	0.01	19	0.06	15	0.40	24	0.45	15	0.42
Shebanova 2002		2	0.83	1	0.41	1	0.40	1	0.69	6	0.60	1	0.64
Smith 1975		39	0.65	53	0.00	58	0.05	51	0.05	43	0.08	64	0.06
Sokolov 2002		7	0.77	3	0.08	8	0.22	10	0.51	2	0.61	5	0.56
Sztompka 1959		3	0.82	13	0.01	7	0.22	5	0.60	12	0.44	7	0.51
Tomsic 1995		78	0.45	40	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.07	69	0.05
Uninsky 1932		57	0.57	59	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.15	42	0.20	38	0.17
Uninsky 1971		63	0.56	26	0.01	21	0.05	33	0.24	33	0.34	30	0.29
Wasowski 1980		44	0.64	39	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	37	0.14	59	0.08
Zak 1937		16	0.71	32	0.00	23	0.06	14	0.41	20	0.29	24	0.34
Zak 1951		19	0.71	42	0.00	22	0.05	13	0.41	18	0.32	20	0.36
Average		4	0.82	4	0.06	4	0.15	3	0.62	21	0.33	13	0.45
Random 1		91	-0.26	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	52	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		89	0.03	78	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	4	0.50	54	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.03	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	11	0.47	55	0.10

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).