Perlemuter 1992

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

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).