Chiu 1999

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		42	0.38	16	0.01	28	0.07	45	0.11	42	0.13	31	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.37	28	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	66	0.05	45	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.29	80	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Bacha 2000		72	0.28	12	0.01	54	0.06	53	0.06	61	0.04	52	0.05
Badura 1965		51	0.36	5	0.03	27	0.07	41	0.15	34	0.21	19	0.18
Barbosa 1983		10	0.47	6	0.02	2	0.12	6	0.51	58	0.07	15	0.19
Biret 1990		15	0.45	37	0.00	14	0.08	17	0.40	46	0.07	22	0.17
Blet 2003		75	0.26	63	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Block 1995		49	0.37	34	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.30	41	0.15	13	0.21
Blumental 1952		33	0.40	59	0.00	36	0.05	30	0.24	50	0.06	32	0.12
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.34	81	0.00	62	0.06	52	0.06	67	0.04	63	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.33	84	0.00	65	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04
Bunin 1987		66	0.31	40	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.03	77	0.04
Bunin 1987b		59	0.33	35	0.00	45	0.07	42	0.13	52	0.06	41	0.09
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		65	0.31	18	0.01	61	0.06	47	0.06	36	0.13	43	0.09
Cortot 1951		86	0.17	54	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.03	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		29	0.41	44	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.34	55	0.05	30	0.13
Czerny 1949		56	0.35	64	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.05	74	0.04
Czerny 1990		12	0.46	13	0.01	23	0.07	22	0.33	56	0.06	28	0.14
Duchoud 2007		55	0.35	9	0.02	26	0.06	36	0.20	14	0.53	5	0.33
Ezaki 2006		11	0.47	21	0.01	10	0.09	11	0.45	44	0.12	10	0.23
Falvay 1989		3	0.50	71	0.00	8	0.07	3	0.54	49	0.05	24	0.16
Farrell 1958		62	0.32	78	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	76	0.04	69	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.41	19	0.01	17	0.08	13	0.43	17	0.54	1	0.48
Fliere 1977		4	0.48	51	0.00	9	0.08	9	0.46	68	0.05	25	0.15
Fou 1978		25	0.41	24	0.01	37	0.06	29	0.25	62	0.05	34	0.11
Francois 1956		73	0.26	31	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	84	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923		81	0.24	48	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.04	82	0.03
Friedman 1923b		82	0.24	11	0.02	72	0.03	73	0.03	69	0.04	80	0.03
Friedman 1930		43	0.38	20	0.01	47	0.05	62	0.05	32	0.26	37	0.11
Garcia 2007		69	0.29	72	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	54	0.05	62	0.05
Garcia 2007b		41	0.38	25	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.20	42	0.12	26	0.15
Gierzod 1998		2	0.51	60	0.00	4	0.10	5	0.52	53	0.06	18	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		50	0.36	73	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.19	59	0.05	39	0.10
Groot 1988		44	0.38	2	0.06	3	0.11	8	0.48	33	0.19	7	0.30
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.41	49	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.13	88	0.03	51	0.06
Hatto 1993		30	0.40	82	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.17	74	0.04	48	0.08
Hatto 1997		21	0.42	36	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.25	71	0.04	38	0.10
Horowitz 1949		79	0.25	42	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	64	0.05	70	0.04
Indjic 1988		28	0.41	85	0.00	44	0.08	39	0.18	69	0.04	44	0.08
Kapell 1951		18	0.43	39	0.00	19	0.08	19	0.35	43	0.15	11	0.23
Kissin 1993		39	0.39	47	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	67	0.05	60	0.05
Kushner 1989		32	0.40	88	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05
Luisada 1991		64	0.32	68	0.00	63	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.05	53	0.05
Lushtak 2004		20	0.42	23	0.01	34	0.06	35	0.20	78	0.04	42	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.37	26	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	65	0.04	57	0.05
Magaloff 1978		16	0.45	4	0.03	7	0.09	16	0.40	39	0.20	8	0.28
Magin 1975		34	0.40	30	0.00	31	0.05	32	0.22	59	0.04	40	0.09
Michalowski 1933		88	0.14	74	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	43	0.10	59	0.05
Milkina 1970		19	0.43	61	0.00	33	0.05	23	0.33	70	0.04	35	0.11
Mohovich 1999		36	0.39	79	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.18	60	0.04	46	0.08
Moravec 1969		31	0.40	3	0.05	21	0.07	27	0.25	45	0.12	20	0.17
Morozova 2008		17	0.44	32	0.00	11	0.07	2	0.55	30	0.29	2	0.40
Neighaus 1950		78	0.25	56	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	74	0.03	89	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		85	0.19	89	0.00	84	0.03	74	0.03	60	0.05	68	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.41	27	0.00	25	0.07	31	0.23	45	0.12	21	0.17
Osinska 1989		7	0.48	57	0.00	16	0.09	14	0.42	53	0.06	23	0.16
Pachmann 1927		83	0.24	65	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.04	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		87	0.14	66	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	84	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		60	0.33	53	0.00	70	0.05	58	0.05	55	0.05	54	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.30	90	0.00	77	0.02	81	0.02	62	0.04	78	0.03
Poblocka 1999		13	0.46	41	0.00	5	0.09	15	0.41	54	0.08	16	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		35	0.40	52	0.00	18	0.07	18	0.38	43	0.11	14	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.29	22	0.01	49	0.05	66	0.05	65	0.04	67	0.04
Rangell 2001		63	0.32	83	0.00	69	0.06	50	0.06	49	0.07	50	0.06
Richter 1976		45	0.38	55	0.00	58	0.07	46	0.07	69	0.03	58	0.05
Rosen 1989		9	0.47	14	0.01	15	0.10	7	0.49	29	0.32	4	0.40
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.26	67	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.05	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.25	75	0.00	74	0.03	72	0.03	47	0.06	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.25	69	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.05	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.35	43	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.10	49	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.29	70	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	50	0.06	64	0.05
Rossi 2007		40	0.38	29	0.00	50	0.05	65	0.05	31	0.26	33	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		58	0.33	91	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.42	45	0.00	46	0.06	54	0.06	65	0.04	65	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		14	0.46	7	0.02	20	0.08	24	0.31	77	0.04	36	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		46	0.38	50	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	61	0.04	61	0.05
Shebanova 2002		6	0.48	17	0.01	6	0.09	4	0.52	28	0.31	3	0.40
Smith 1975		54	0.35	86	0.00	68	0.06	56	0.06	68	0.04	55	0.05
Sokolov 2002		76	0.25	38	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	83	0.02
Sztompka 1959		52	0.36	62	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.04	72	0.04
Tomsic 1995		37	0.39	15	0.01	35	0.05	33	0.22	44	0.14	17	0.18
Uninsky 1932		84	0.22	76	0.00	78	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.03	86	0.02
Uninsky 1971		26	0.41	77	0.00	29	0.06	20	0.35	56	0.06	27	0.14
Wasowski 1980		38	0.39	10	0.02	32	0.06	26	0.29	56	0.06	29	0.13
Zak 1937		8	0.47	33	0.00	12	0.07	12	0.45	39	0.23	6	0.32
Zak 1951		5	0.48	8	0.02	13	0.07	10	0.45	36	0.16	9	0.27
Average		1	0.59	1	0.54	1	0.53	1	0.76	53	0.07	12	0.23
Random 1		91	-0.07	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	38	0.19	76	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.03	46	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	65	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		89	0.00	58	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	18	0.31	47	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).