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

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).