Barbosa 1983

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		69	0.34	51	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	59	0.04	78	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.62	32	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.71	3	0.72	4	0.71
Ashkenazy 1981		65	0.38	45	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.02	91	0.02
Bacha 2000		67	0.38	82	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	37	0.24	63	0.11
Badura 1965		63	0.39	26	0.00	63	0.07	57	0.07	41	0.12	67	0.09
Barbosa 1983		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Biret 1990		27	0.55	48	0.00	20	0.12	17	0.55	11	0.56	19	0.55
Blet 2003		64	0.39	70	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.03
Block 1995		38	0.52	15	0.01	26	0.10	29	0.35	9	0.62	25	0.47
Blumental 1952		9	0.61	18	0.01	14	0.10	10	0.65	3	0.74	6	0.69
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.52	22	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.49	14	0.46	26	0.47
Brailowsky 1960		16	0.58	29	0.00	18	0.12	26	0.38	13	0.61	24	0.48
Bunin 1987		45	0.50	40	0.00	50	0.06	64	0.06	6	0.58	50	0.19
Bunin 1987b		50	0.48	83	0.00	53	0.08	48	0.08	8	0.57	46	0.21
Chiu 1999		52	0.47	38	0.00	51	0.07	58	0.07	6	0.51	49	0.19
Cohen 1997		72	0.33	67	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	54	0.04	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		61	0.40	8	0.02	40	0.08	42	0.17	24	0.41	44	0.26
Csalog 1996		60	0.40	75	0.00	62	0.09	46	0.09	61	0.05	73	0.07
Czerny 1949		15	0.59	11	0.01	8	0.13	21	0.48	17	0.66	17	0.56
Czerny 1990		5	0.63	3	0.04	4	0.24	2	0.76	7	0.77	2	0.76
Duchoud 2007		85	0.21	86	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	67	0.04	87	0.03
Ezaki 2006		2	0.67	2	0.06	2	0.20	4	0.75	3	0.71	3	0.73
Falvay 1989		12	0.59	20	0.00	16	0.12	13	0.61	17	0.58	15	0.59
Farrell 1958		35	0.53	25	0.00	31	0.08	27	0.38	8	0.67	21	0.50
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.44	55	0.00	61	0.08	49	0.08	31	0.35	53	0.17
Fliere 1977		23	0.56	43	0.00	19	0.10	19	0.51	20	0.46	23	0.48
Fou 1978		24	0.56	30	0.00	34	0.07	33	0.29	23	0.39	36	0.34
Francois 1956		78	0.30	77	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	60	0.05	82	0.04
Friedman 1923		73	0.33	84	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	38	0.19	68	0.09
Friedman 1923b		75	0.32	56	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	40	0.18	71	0.08
Friedman 1930		76	0.32	41	0.00	64	0.06	60	0.06	42	0.17	64	0.10
Garcia 2007		81	0.28	74	0.00	67	0.05	68	0.05	42	0.16	66	0.09
Garcia 2007b		68	0.35	35	0.00	54	0.08	54	0.08	36	0.27	57	0.15
Gierzod 1998		8	0.61	21	0.00	9	0.16	8	0.66	14	0.54	14	0.60
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.52	42	0.00	48	0.06	63	0.06	20	0.44	54	0.16
Groot 1988		49	0.48	57	0.00	35	0.06	45	0.13	17	0.38	45	0.22
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.66	4	0.04	3	0.21	6	0.68	7	0.66	7	0.67
Hatto 1993		33	0.54	85	0.00	47	0.06	62	0.06	30	0.33	60	0.14
Hatto 1997		32	0.54	78	0.00	46	0.07	59	0.07	33	0.34	56	0.15
Horowitz 1949		74	0.33	60	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	36	0.18	72	0.07
Indjic 1988		37	0.53	87	0.00	52	0.08	53	0.08	33	0.29	55	0.15
Kapell 1951		13	0.59	9	0.01	13	0.08	12	0.63	8	0.67	10	0.65
Kissin 1993		19	0.57	13	0.01	36	0.06	36	0.26	17	0.55	33	0.38
Kushner 1989		21	0.56	31	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.47	35	0.33	31	0.39
Luisada 1991		34	0.53	28	0.00	49	0.06	61	0.06	16	0.50	51	0.17
Lushtak 2004		28	0.55	14	0.01	25	0.11	24	0.43	20	0.50	27	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.56	50	0.00	24	0.12	22	0.48	18	0.52	22	0.50
Magaloff 1978		18	0.57	23	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.41	7	0.64	20	0.51
Magin 1975		36	0.53	58	0.00	30	0.09	31	0.33	14	0.57	29	0.43
Michalowski 1933		87	0.13	61	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.02	90	0.02
Milkina 1970		11	0.60	6	0.02	5	0.18	7	0.67	13	0.59	13	0.63
Mohovich 1999		29	0.55	44	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.30	27	0.40	35	0.35
Moravec 1969		10	0.60	5	0.03	10	0.10	18	0.51	8	0.59	18	0.55
Morozova 2008		42	0.52	71	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.28	16	0.53	32	0.39
Neighaus 1950		77	0.30	68	0.00	83	0.05	69	0.05	60	0.04	81	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.34	62	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	41	0.11	74	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.46	59	0.00	58	0.08	51	0.08	29	0.36	52	0.17
Osinska 1989		17	0.58	72	0.00	22	0.13	14	0.61	21	0.55	16	0.58
Pachmann 1927		84	0.23	88	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.05	77	0.04
Paderewski 1930		88	0.13	89	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	60	0.04	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		79	0.29	90	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	63	0.04	83	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.18	46	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03
Poblocka 1999		4	0.64	49	0.00	12	0.07	11	0.64	7	0.66	9	0.65
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.46	7	0.02	11	0.07	28	0.38	9	0.48	30	0.43
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.50	27	0.00	33	0.07	39	0.20	10	0.54	38	0.33
Rangell 2001		51	0.47	69	0.00	59	0.08	50	0.08	13	0.53	47	0.21
Richter 1976		22	0.56	79	0.00	32	0.12	30	0.34	13	0.60	28	0.45
Rosen 1989		56	0.45	63	0.00	56	0.07	56	0.07	35	0.27	59	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.39	73	0.00	70	0.05	66	0.05	34	0.30	62	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		71	0.34	91	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	37	0.18	69	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.28	47	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		66	0.38	80	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	59	0.06	75	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.28	53	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	57	0.05	80	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.26	64	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.05	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.52	37	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.16	17	0.49	43	0.28
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.59	39	0.00	15	0.12	9	0.66	10	0.63	12	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.62	12	0.01	6	0.15	3	0.75	7	0.68	5	0.71
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.49	36	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.26	14	0.53	34	0.37
Shebanova 2002		53	0.46	65	0.00	60	0.08	47	0.08	37	0.20	61	0.13
Smith 1975		43	0.51	24	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.18	10	0.58	40	0.32
Sokolov 2002		47	0.49	17	0.01	57	0.08	52	0.08	14	0.51	48	0.20
Sztompka 1959		46	0.49	76	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.22	22	0.53	37	0.34
Tomsic 1995		57	0.45	66	0.00	55	0.07	55	0.07	28	0.29	58	0.14
Uninsky 1932		58	0.45	19	0.01	45	0.07	44	0.14	8	0.66	42	0.30
Uninsky 1971		26	0.56	33	0.00	17	0.10	15	0.60	4	0.72	8	0.66
Wasowski 1980		20	0.57	10	0.01	21	0.11	16	0.60	2	0.68	11	0.64
Zak 1937		31	0.54	16	0.01	41	0.06	41	0.17	16	0.52	41	0.30
Zak 1951		30	0.55	52	0.00	42	0.08	38	0.21	17	0.53	39	0.33
Average		1	0.74	1	0.60	1	0.59	1	0.87	15	0.66	1	0.76
Random 1		90	-0.01	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	35	0.20	79	0.04
Random 2		89	0.08	34	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.42	65	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.03	54	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	14	0.36	70	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).