Shebanova 2002

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		5	0.85	3	0.08	5	0.24	4	0.63	4	0.57	6	0.60
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.69	78	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.19	76	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.67	52	0.00	39	0.08	36	0.23	12	0.43	36	0.31
Bacha 2000		66	0.60	70	0.00	62	0.05	50	0.05	22	0.26	67	0.11
Badura 1965		59	0.66	87	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	20	0.48	51	0.14
Barbosa 1983		85	0.48	18	0.01	69	0.03	77	0.03	24	0.22	77	0.08
Biret 1990		48	0.69	56	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	20	0.34	46	0.16
Blet 2003		38	0.70	50	0.00	54	0.03	76	0.03	18	0.37	70	0.11
Block 1995		64	0.63	73	0.00	48	0.04	63	0.04	5	0.43	59	0.13
Blumental 1952		71	0.58	47	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	38	0.12	78	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.76	45	0.00	15	0.08	25	0.35	17	0.51	22	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		60	0.65	79	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	22	0.31	68	0.11
Bunin 1987		74	0.56	54	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	21	0.41	72	0.11
Bunin 1987b		76	0.55	74	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	21	0.41	69	0.11
Chiu 1999		67	0.59	12	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.10	13	0.34	44	0.18
Cohen 1997		88	0.33	83	0.00	88	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.04
Cortot 1951		42	0.69	59	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	17	0.43	61	0.13
Csalog 1996		79	0.53	28	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	18	0.34	64	0.12
Czerny 1949		15	0.77	30	0.00	19	0.08	13	0.41	14	0.52	14	0.46
Czerny 1990		18	0.76	31	0.00	32	0.05	35	0.24	16	0.37	38	0.30
Duchoud 2007		65	0.62	43	0.00	50	0.04	75	0.04	9	0.43	58	0.13
Ezaki 2006		45	0.69	41	0.00	55	0.03	81	0.03	29	0.25	74	0.09
Falvay 1989		82	0.51	27	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.10	79	0.05
Farrell 1958		54	0.67	2	0.08	13	0.09	40	0.18	20	0.42	40	0.27
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.67	71	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	10	0.44	48	0.15
Fliere 1977		6	0.84	13	0.01	7	0.25	7	0.55	3	0.54	7	0.54
Fou 1978		51	0.68	61	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.15	16	0.36	43	0.23
Francois 1956		29	0.73	23	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.17	2	0.57	37	0.31
Friedman 1923		40	0.69	69	0.00	51	0.03	78	0.03	22	0.44	73	0.11
Friedman 1923b		46	0.69	80	0.00	49	0.04	72	0.04	22	0.45	60	0.13
Friedman 1930		44	0.69	75	0.00	61	0.05	48	0.05	26	0.41	50	0.14
Garcia 2007		32	0.73	44	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.25	11	0.52	30	0.36
Garcia 2007b		22	0.76	60	0.00	18	0.08	24	0.35	4	0.61	15	0.46
Gierzod 1998		2	0.88	5	0.06	3	0.22	2	0.67	2	0.69	2	0.68
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.72	66	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	6	0.49	52	0.14
Groot 1988		56	0.67	29	0.00	47	0.04	68	0.04	8	0.50	53	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		35	0.72	17	0.01	30	0.05	32	0.27	21	0.33	39	0.30
Hatto 1993		55	0.67	9	0.02	37	0.09	31	0.28	14	0.47	31	0.36
Hatto 1997		49	0.68	55	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.28	14	0.45	32	0.35
Horowitz 1949		52	0.67	67	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	18	0.47	47	0.15
Indjic 1988		47	0.69	57	0.00	35	0.05	29	0.29	14	0.45	29	0.36
Kapell 1951		21	0.76	8	0.02	11	0.16	10	0.46	6	0.42	18	0.44
Kissin 1993		9	0.81	19	0.01	8	0.13	9	0.48	4	0.61	9	0.54
Kushner 1989		8	0.83	6	0.06	10	0.15	11	0.45	2	0.62	11	0.53
Luisada 1991		31	0.73	37	0.00	20	0.09	20	0.37	11	0.41	28	0.39
Lushtak 2004		36	0.71	15	0.01	34	0.05	33	0.25	6	0.43	33	0.33
Malcuzynski 1961		72	0.58	53	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	50	0.05	82	0.04
Magaloff 1978		61	0.65	11	0.01	72	0.05	56	0.05	19	0.33	54	0.13
Magin 1975		28	0.74	68	0.00	17	0.07	19	0.37	8	0.52	17	0.44
Michalowski 1933		24	0.75	84	0.00	31	0.06	28	0.30	10	0.53	26	0.40
Milkina 1970		23	0.75	48	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.16	16	0.41	42	0.26
Mohovich 1999		10	0.79	20	0.00	14	0.08	12	0.41	4	0.72	10	0.54
Moravec 1969		86	0.44	34	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.06	80	0.04
Morozova 2008		30	0.73	14	0.01	27	0.11	27	0.32	7	0.51	27	0.40
Neighaus 1950		3	0.87	7	0.04	4	0.28	3	0.65	1	0.69	3	0.67
Niedzielski 1931		34	0.72	51	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.20	15	0.48	35	0.31
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.83	10	0.01	6	0.28	6	0.60	1	0.69	4	0.64
Osinska 1989		14	0.78	22	0.00	21	0.07	22	0.36	9	0.55	16	0.44
Pachmann 1927		62	0.64	58	0.00	77	0.05	54	0.05	22	0.32	57	0.13
Paderewski 1930		58	0.66	88	0.00	64	0.06	46	0.06	21	0.34	49	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.76	33	0.00	12	0.10	15	0.39	2	0.64	12	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.57	24	0.00	75	0.06	47	0.06	6	0.46	45	0.17
Poblocka 1999		11	0.79	36	0.00	9	0.14	8	0.48	2	0.60	8	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		43	0.69	62	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	13	0.34	63	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		50	0.68	26	0.00	28	0.07	39	0.19	15	0.36	41	0.26
Rangell 2001		78	0.53	21	0.00	66	0.04	59	0.04	18	0.37	65	0.12
Richter 1976		70	0.58	64	0.00	76	0.04	57	0.04	28	0.40	56	0.13
Rosen 1989		12	0.78	46	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.36	9	0.51	21	0.43
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.56	85	0.00	80	0.05	49	0.05	52	0.04	84	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.52	81	0.00	82	0.03	88	0.03	51	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.52	86	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	55	0.05	86	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.51	72	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	47	0.05	87	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.50	89	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	65	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		87	0.42	82	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.05	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		68	0.59	35	0.00	74	0.05	55	0.05	36	0.17	75	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		77	0.54	16	0.01	73	0.04	60	0.04	28	0.37	66	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		63	0.64	32	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	28	0.33	71	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		16	0.77	38	0.00	16	0.07	17	0.38	8	0.58	13	0.47
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		37	0.71	76	0.00	56	0.04	67	0.04	17	0.36	62	0.12
Sokolov 2002		39	0.69	42	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.23	7	0.45	34	0.32
Sztompka 1959		4	0.86	4	0.06	2	0.18	5	0.60	2	0.62	5	0.61
Tomsic 1995		69	0.59	25	0.00	79	0.05	53	0.05	30	0.34	55	0.13
Uninsky 1932		25	0.74	63	0.00	25	0.09	23	0.36	16	0.46	25	0.41
Uninsky 1971		26	0.74	40	0.00	26	0.13	14	0.39	15	0.44	24	0.41
Wasowski 1980		27	0.74	49	0.00	29	0.05	26	0.33	6	0.51	23	0.41
Zak 1937		13	0.78	39	0.00	24	0.11	16	0.38	7	0.49	19	0.43
Zak 1951		20	0.76	77	0.00	23	0.08	18	0.37	8	0.49	20	0.43
Average		1	0.89	1	0.43	1	0.42	1	0.75	3	0.63	1	0.69
Random 1		91	-0.21	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.07	65	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	68	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.17	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	66	0.04	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).