Tomsic 1995

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

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).