Average

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		57	0.59	86	0.00	62	0.05	63	0.05	1	0.73	61	0.19
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.71	26	0.00	22	0.21	18	0.59	1	0.86	18	0.71
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.59	49	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	1	0.72	71	0.17
Bacha 2000		67	0.55	75	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	1	0.76	65	0.17
Badura 1965		64	0.57	38	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	1	0.73	62	0.19
Barbosa 1983		15	0.74	29	0.00	18	0.10	15	0.66	1	0.87	14	0.76
Biret 1990		11	0.74	10	0.02	10	0.16	10	0.70	1	0.87	11	0.78
Blet 2003		61	0.58	66	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	1	0.75	67	0.17
Block 1995		65	0.57	41	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	3	0.74	63	0.19
Blumental 1952		31	0.69	27	0.00	30	0.10	28	0.44	1	0.85	27	0.61
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.71	11	0.01	11	0.16	16	0.65	1	0.87	16	0.75
Brailowsky 1960		48	0.63	25	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.15	2	0.75	44	0.34
Bunin 1987		54	0.60	56	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	2	0.80	58	0.20
Bunin 1987b		63	0.58	57	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	2	0.79	57	0.20
Chiu 1999		59	0.59	63	0.00	60	0.07	53	0.07	1	0.76	54	0.23
Cohen 1997		78	0.51	54	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	1	0.71	72	0.17
Cortot 1951		83	0.45	67	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	7	0.64	87	0.14
Csalog 1996		46	0.64	28	0.00	34	0.07	37	0.23	2	0.78	37	0.42
Czerny 1949		24	0.71	21	0.01	16	0.13	22	0.53	2	0.84	22	0.67
Czerny 1990		9	0.76	18	0.01	12	0.18	6	0.73	1	0.89	6	0.81
Duchoud 2007		86	0.44	83	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	3	0.66	84	0.14
Ezaki 2006		12	0.74	22	0.01	17	0.10	19	0.59	1	0.81	21	0.69
Falvay 1989		6	0.77	9	0.02	14	0.19	8	0.71	1	0.88	8	0.79
Farrell 1958		52	0.61	64	0.00	46	0.07	52	0.07	1	0.84	53	0.24
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.58	50	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	3	0.75	69	0.17
Fliere 1977		7	0.77	4	0.10	4	0.20	7	0.71	1	0.88	7	0.79
Fou 1978		17	0.72	31	0.00	26	0.10	25	0.46	1	0.86	24	0.63
Francois 1956		74	0.52	34	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	1	0.73	80	0.15
Friedman 1923		80	0.50	30	0.00	75	0.05	60	0.05	3	0.79	60	0.20
Friedman 1923b		79	0.50	20	0.01	71	0.03	80	0.03	3	0.77	79	0.15
Friedman 1930		72	0.53	35	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	4	0.74	68	0.17
Garcia 2007		81	0.50	84	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	3	0.68	77	0.16
Garcia 2007b		60	0.59	46	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.22	2	0.77	40	0.41
Gierzod 1998		1	0.81	2	0.11	2	0.24	3	0.78	1	0.91	2	0.84
Gornostaeva 1994		30	0.70	58	0.00	29	0.10	30	0.43	1	0.85	29	0.60
Groot 1988		47	0.64	7	0.03	24	0.12	26	0.45	1	0.80	30	0.60
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.77	6	0.03	13	0.19	9	0.70	1	0.89	9	0.79
Hatto 1993		16	0.73	45	0.00	9	0.14	12	0.68	3	0.88	13	0.77
Hatto 1997		13	0.74	15	0.01	8	0.14	11	0.69	3	0.89	10	0.78
Horowitz 1949		82	0.45	87	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	4	0.62	74	0.16
Indjic 1988		14	0.74	5	0.08	7	0.15	13	0.68	3	0.88	12	0.77
Kapell 1951		25	0.71	16	0.01	27	0.11	24	0.47	1	0.83	25	0.62
Kissin 1993		38	0.67	19	0.01	49	0.08	49	0.08	1	0.81	49	0.25
Kushner 1989		4	0.78	3	0.11	3	0.16	4	0.78	1	0.89	4	0.83
Luisada 1991		42	0.65	32	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	1	0.80	51	0.24
Lushtak 2004		27	0.70	39	0.00	20	0.12	20	0.58	1	0.85	20	0.70
Malcuzynski 1961		18	0.72	43	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.64	1	0.86	17	0.74
Magaloff 1978		29	0.70	42	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.34	1	0.84	34	0.53
Magin 1975		20	0.72	17	0.01	25	0.10	29	0.44	1	0.83	28	0.60
Michalowski 1933		88	0.34	59	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	3	0.62	76	0.16
Milkina 1970		2	0.79	1	0.28	1	0.28	1	0.81	1	0.91	1	0.86
Mohovich 1999		23	0.71	24	0.01	21	0.14	21	0.58	1	0.86	19	0.71
Moravec 1969		36	0.67	72	0.00	44	0.11	40	0.21	1	0.79	38	0.41
Morozova 2008		43	0.64	51	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.20	1	0.80	41	0.40
Neighaus 1950		73	0.53	76	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	2	0.67	86	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		84	0.45	88	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	1	0.54	88	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.64	37	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	1	0.83	45	0.34
Osinska 1989		5	0.77	8	0.02	6	0.18	2	0.78	1	0.88	3	0.83
Pachmann 1927		85	0.44	70	0.00	87	0.04	71	0.04	5	0.62	75	0.16
Paderewski 1930		87	0.36	77	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	4	0.63	83	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		75	0.51	80	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	1	0.65	81	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.51	85	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	1	0.73	78	0.15
Poblocka 1999		28	0.70	52	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.36	1	0.84	32	0.55
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.64	13	0.01	23	0.18	23	0.51	1	0.80	23	0.64
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.59	73	0.00	42	0.07	38	0.22	1	0.77	39	0.41
Rangell 2001		55	0.60	55	0.00	61	0.07	55	0.07	1	0.78	55	0.23
Richter 1976		39	0.66	14	0.01	48	0.08	48	0.08	1	0.79	48	0.25
Rosen 1989		34	0.68	60	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.20	1	0.81	42	0.40
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.56	68	0.00	69	0.04	76	0.04	7	0.73	70	0.17
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.55	78	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	6	0.71	66	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.53	53	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	5	0.71	73	0.17
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.60	69	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	5	0.81	59	0.20
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.53	79	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	6	0.70	85	0.14
Rossi 2007		77	0.51	89	0.00	78	0.03	88	0.03	3	0.67	82	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		32	0.69	47	0.00	31	0.09	31	0.39	1	0.82	31	0.57
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.75	23	0.01	15	0.16	14	0.68	2	0.84	15	0.76
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.78	12	0.01	5	0.17	5	0.77	1	0.89	5	0.83
Schilhawsky 1960		37	0.67	36	0.00	32	0.07	43	0.17	1	0.82	43	0.37
Shebanova 2002		40	0.65	74	0.00	47	0.08	50	0.08	1	0.80	50	0.25
Smith 1975		41	0.65	44	0.00	51	0.09	47	0.09	1	0.79	47	0.27
Sokolov 2002		50	0.62	61	0.00	57	0.07	54	0.07	1	0.85	52	0.24
Sztompka 1959		49	0.63	65	0.00	50	0.10	46	0.10	1	0.81	46	0.28
Tomsic 1995		51	0.61	33	0.00	59	0.06	56	0.06	2	0.71	56	0.21
Uninsky 1932		71	0.53	81	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	1	0.77	64	0.18
Uninsky 1971		33	0.68	62	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.31	1	0.86	35	0.52
Wasowski 1980		35	0.68	71	0.00	38	0.10	35	0.32	1	0.82	36	0.51
Zak 1937		26	0.71	48	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.35	2	0.83	33	0.54
Zak 1951		19	0.72	40	0.00	28	0.10	27	0.45	2	0.86	26	0.62
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		90	-0.09	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	90	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	59	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	67	0.03	90	0.02

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).