Schilhawsky 1960

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

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).