Pierdomenico 2008

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