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

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).