Ezaki 2006

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		63	0.42	45	0.00	71	0.06	57	0.06	38	0.17	63	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.59	35	0.00	23	0.10	15	0.54	15	0.56	19	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.42	77	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		45	0.49	37	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	2	0.62	46	0.19
Badura 1965		60	0.42	21	0.01	61	0.05	63	0.05	32	0.26	61	0.11
Barbosa 1983		2	0.67	6	0.03	2	0.24	3	0.71	4	0.75	2	0.73
Biret 1990		28	0.55	15	0.01	28	0.08	27	0.35	25	0.42	31	0.38
Blet 2003		61	0.42	84	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	39	0.15	67	0.08
Block 1995		22	0.59	3	0.04	14	0.12	25	0.47	5	0.71	16	0.58
Blumental 1952		15	0.60	12	0.01	11	0.13	18	0.53	11	0.66	14	0.59
Boshniakovich 1969		66	0.41	58	0.00	59	0.06	56	0.06	53	0.06	74	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.52	11	0.01	30	0.07	39	0.18	28	0.42	41	0.27
Bunin 1987		50	0.47	68	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	11	0.48	49	0.17
Bunin 1987b		48	0.47	51	0.00	44	0.08	38	0.21	7	0.57	32	0.35
Chiu 1999		49	0.47	27	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	11	0.45	43	0.23
Cohen 1997		72	0.35	71	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	55	0.04	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		75	0.34	56	0.00	72	0.05	65	0.05	38	0.25	62	0.11
Csalog 1996		40	0.51	61	0.00	37	0.07	33	0.25	14	0.47	33	0.34
Czerny 1949		26	0.56	19	0.01	8	0.13	17	0.53	26	0.59	18	0.56
Czerny 1990		10	0.61	9	0.01	10	0.28	9	0.60	24	0.61	10	0.60
Duchoud 2007		84	0.23	54	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	48	0.07	76	0.05
Ezaki 2006		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Falvay 1989		3	0.66	13	0.01	5	0.17	5	0.70	6	0.70	3	0.70
Farrell 1958		41	0.50	40	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.29	18	0.54	29	0.40
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.45	44	0.00	63	0.05	67	0.05	34	0.30	58	0.12
Fliere 1977		14	0.60	30	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.53	15	0.51	22	0.52
Fou 1978		13	0.60	25	0.00	25	0.11	24	0.49	9	0.54	23	0.51
Francois 1956		79	0.29	33	0.00	76	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		83	0.25	78	0.00	85	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		82	0.25	57	0.00	84	0.04	75	0.04	64	0.05	81	0.04
Friedman 1930		81	0.26	85	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007		74	0.34	72	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	36	0.25	60	0.11
Garcia 2007b		68	0.39	38	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.06	75	0.06
Gierzod 1998		20	0.59	42	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.56	23	0.45	25	0.50
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.53	86	0.00	40	0.06	42	0.17	21	0.44	42	0.27
Groot 1988		65	0.42	62	0.00	54	0.05	64	0.05	66	0.05	77	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.64	10	0.01	9	0.17	10	0.60	15	0.61	11	0.60
Hatto 1993		32	0.54	36	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.24	27	0.37	38	0.30
Hatto 1997		29	0.55	87	0.00	35	0.08	31	0.28	28	0.40	34	0.33
Horowitz 1949		85	0.23	63	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.04	83	0.03
Indjic 1988		33	0.54	64	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.25	30	0.33	39	0.29
Kapell 1951		6	0.62	4	0.04	4	0.19	2	0.72	2	0.75	1	0.73
Kissin 1993		24	0.58	23	0.01	27	0.09	28	0.33	12	0.61	26	0.45
Kushner 1989		25	0.56	43	0.00	26	0.14	23	0.50	31	0.36	27	0.42
Luisada 1991		43	0.50	41	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	27	0.37	53	0.15
Lushtak 2004		35	0.53	55	0.00	32	0.05	32	0.27	29	0.40	35	0.33
Malcuzynski 1961		11	0.61	2	0.06	3	0.17	6	0.67	5	0.64	7	0.65
Magaloff 1978		30	0.55	47	0.00	33	0.05	37	0.21	20	0.45	36	0.31
Magin 1975		31	0.55	48	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.30	18	0.53	28	0.40
Michalowski 1933		87	0.21	79	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	38	0.14	73	0.06
Milkina 1970		12	0.61	5	0.03	7	0.21	8	0.61	17	0.55	15	0.58
Mohovich 1999		16	0.60	16	0.01	17	0.14	12	0.58	10	0.62	9	0.60
Moravec 1969		17	0.60	29	0.00	13	0.14	7	0.61	3	0.73	6	0.67
Morozova 2008		55	0.45	49	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	23	0.41	48	0.17
Neighaus 1950		86	0.23	80	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.02	91	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		77	0.32	81	0.00	75	0.03	85	0.03	52	0.06	80	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		57	0.45	14	0.01	42	0.06	41	0.17	17	0.46	40	0.28
Osinska 1989		5	0.64	17	0.01	6	0.22	4	0.70	10	0.68	4	0.69
Pachmann 1927		73	0.35	26	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	12	0.54	51	0.16
Paderewski 1930		88	0.06	88	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		80	0.29	65	0.00	83	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04	78	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.30	89	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.05	79	0.04
Poblocka 1999		8	0.62	31	0.00	12	0.15	20	0.51	14	0.55	21	0.53
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.46	34	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.17	27	0.32	44	0.23
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.50	46	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	27	0.39	54	0.14
Rangell 2001		56	0.45	7	0.01	52	0.06	53	0.06	19	0.48	50	0.17
Richter 1976		19	0.59	24	0.01	19	0.09	21	0.51	5	0.69	13	0.59
Rosen 1989		39	0.52	32	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	25	0.35	55	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.37	59	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	41	0.13	69	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.40	73	0.00	67	0.05	70	0.05	29	0.35	56	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.33	50	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		62	0.42	69	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	38	0.19	66	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.36	74	0.00	70	0.05	58	0.05	35	0.27	59	0.12
Rossi 2007		69	0.37	22	0.01	65	0.05	68	0.05	28	0.29	57	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		47	0.48	53	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.11	26	0.39	45	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		23	0.59	60	0.00	22	0.10	14	0.55	15	0.56	20	0.55
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.59	28	0.00	16	0.11	11	0.59	22	0.53	17	0.56
Schilhawsky 1960		36	0.52	66	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.17	13	0.54	37	0.30
Shebanova 2002		53	0.46	75	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	43	0.14	68	0.08
Smith 1975		46	0.48	18	0.01	64	0.05	66	0.05	49	0.07	71	0.06
Sokolov 2002		44	0.49	39	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.23	6	0.65	30	0.39
Sztompka 1959		59	0.43	76	0.00	69	0.06	55	0.06	46	0.07	72	0.06
Tomsic 1995		27	0.56	20	0.01	24	0.12	26	0.41	6	0.63	24	0.51
Uninsky 1932		58	0.44	52	0.00	53	0.07	47	0.07	22	0.52	47	0.19
Uninsky 1971		38	0.52	90	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	33	0.35	52	0.16
Wasowski 1980		51	0.47	82	0.00	55	0.05	69	0.05	43	0.16	64	0.09
Zak 1937		9	0.61	70	0.00	21	0.12	22	0.51	6	0.69	12	0.59
Zak 1951		7	0.62	8	0.01	18	0.10	16	0.53	6	0.71	8	0.61
Average		1	0.74	1	0.58	1	0.58	1	0.81	19	0.59	5	0.69
Random 1		90	-0.03	83	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	30	0.24	70	0.07
Random 2		89	0.06	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.37	65	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.08	67	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	52	0.04	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).