Garcia 2007

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		75	0.20	62	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.34	78	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.33	54	0.06	26	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		77	0.18	82	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03
Bacha 2000		69	0.22	54	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.03	70	0.03
Badura 1965		64	0.25	45	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.14	89	0.02	53	0.05
Barbosa 1983		58	0.28	36	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.16	68	0.05	41	0.09
Biret 1990		39	0.33	40	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.20	77	0.03	45	0.08
Blet 2003		48	0.30	43	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	63	0.04	62	0.04
Block 1995		67	0.24	12	0.00	25	0.08	44	0.11	83	0.03	47	0.06
Blumental 1952		57	0.28	83	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	76	0.04	66	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.40	2	0.03	12	0.22	18	0.49	48	0.07	16	0.19
Brailowsky 1960		87	0.14	67	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.03	84	0.02
Bunin 1987		30	0.35	37	0.00	41	0.08	38	0.24	61	0.04	40	0.10
Bunin 1987b		29	0.36	33	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.27	57	0.05	33	0.12
Chiu 1999		55	0.29	68	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	55	0.06	50	0.05
Cohen 1997		43	0.31	27	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	46	0.06	44	0.08
Cortot 1951		73	0.21	79	0.00	68	0.05	57	0.05	46	0.08	48	0.06
Csalog 1996		12	0.43	16	0.00	9	0.16	6	0.63	29	0.30	7	0.43
Czerny 1949		24	0.38	22	0.00	24	0.12	25	0.42	59	0.06	22	0.16
Czerny 1990		52	0.29	47	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.03	67	0.04
Duchoud 2007		46	0.31	25	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	32	0.40	27	0.14
Ezaki 2006		33	0.34	57	0.00	33	0.05	36	0.25	61	0.05	37	0.11
Falvay 1989		20	0.38	34	0.00	20	0.10	24	0.42	71	0.04	30	0.13
Farrell 1958		19	0.39	9	0.01	19	0.09	14	0.51	41	0.22	10	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.27	73	0.00	70	0.05	48	0.05	71	0.04	64	0.04
Fliere 1977		15	0.42	8	0.01	13	0.13	16	0.50	58	0.05	19	0.16
Fou 1978		36	0.34	28	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	86	0.03	59	0.04
Francois 1956		56	0.29	63	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	67	0.04	69	0.04
Friedman 1923		80	0.17	69	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	86	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.15	58	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		53	0.29	7	0.01	51	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.03	76	0.03
Garcia 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007b		1	0.69	1	0.82	1	0.81	1	0.88	1	0.86	1	0.87
Gierzod 1998		13	0.43	31	0.00	18	0.08	22	0.44	59	0.05	23	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.46	23	0.00	11	0.17	11	0.54	37	0.24	8	0.36
Groot 1988		60	0.27	49	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	86	0.03	80	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.35	32	0.00	30	0.06	31	0.34	70	0.04	36	0.12
Hatto 1993		38	0.33	48	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.29	71	0.04	38	0.11
Hatto 1997		35	0.34	46	0.00	27	0.08	21	0.45	68	0.04	32	0.13
Horowitz 1949		84	0.17	71	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	85	0.02
Indjic 1988		40	0.32	80	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.36	65	0.04	34	0.12
Kapell 1951		6	0.46	14	0.00	7	0.18	8	0.63	32	0.38	5	0.49
Kissin 1993		65	0.24	84	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04	60	0.04
Kushner 1989		9	0.44	35	0.00	10	0.19	10	0.55	46	0.10	13	0.23
Luisada 1991		72	0.21	85	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	76	0.04	55	0.04
Lushtak 2004		44	0.31	74	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.05	65	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.46	3	0.02	5	0.17	4	0.68	39	0.27	6	0.43
Magaloff 1978		70	0.22	72	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03	71	0.03
Magin 1975		14	0.42	21	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.51	47	0.08	15	0.20
Michalowski 1933		88	0.11	20	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.03	75	0.03
Milkina 1970		22	0.38	55	0.00	23	0.14	17	0.49	77	0.04	25	0.14
Mohovich 1999		11	0.43	13	0.00	4	0.12	7	0.63	39	0.18	9	0.34
Moravec 1969		32	0.35	59	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	68	0.04	54	0.04
Morozova 2008		28	0.36	64	0.00	26	0.07	23	0.44	43	0.11	14	0.22
Neighaus 1950		83	0.17	24	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	79	0.03	91	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.24	6	0.01	52	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.04	58	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.30	75	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.24	72	0.04	39	0.10
Osinska 1989		18	0.39	42	0.00	15	0.08	12	0.52	52	0.06	17	0.18
Pachmann 1927		54	0.29	41	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.13	46	0.07
Paderewski 1930		45	0.31	4	0.01	38	0.06	39	0.22	19	0.37	12	0.29
Perlemuter 1992		25	0.37	18	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.30	29	0.32	11	0.31
Pierdomenico 2008		5	0.46	5	0.01	2	0.21	5	0.64	2	0.73	3	0.68
Poblocka 1999		62	0.26	86	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	64	0.06	49	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		10	0.44	38	0.00	14	0.14	13	0.51	52	0.05	20	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.17	26	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03
Rangell 2001		23	0.38	39	0.00	34	0.07	27	0.38	58	0.06	24	0.15
Richter 1976		47	0.31	60	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	73	0.03	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		21	0.38	50	0.00	16	0.07	30	0.35	60	0.04	35	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.18	87	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.16	88	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.17	56	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.19	51	0.00	76	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.23	65	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.05	68	0.04
Rossi 2007		3	0.50	11	0.00	3	0.22	2	0.74	1	0.71	2	0.72
Rubinstein 1939		37	0.34	53	0.00	28	0.10	26	0.41	62	0.04	31	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		27	0.36	29	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.47	66	0.04	28	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.39	61	0.00	22	0.10	19	0.48	58	0.06	18	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		49	0.30	19	0.00	58	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04
Shebanova 2002		51	0.29	76	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	67	0.04	52	0.05
Smith 1975		74	0.21	10	0.01	69	0.05	49	0.05	77	0.03	57	0.04
Sokolov 2002		71	0.22	17	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	74	0.03	56	0.04
Sztompka 1959		42	0.32	89	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.17	66	0.04	43	0.08
Tomsic 1995		8	0.44	44	0.00	8	0.16	9	0.58	14	0.52	4	0.55
Uninsky 1932		82	0.17	90	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	78	0.03	77	0.03
Uninsky 1971		63	0.26	15	0.00	67	0.05	55	0.05	81	0.03	61	0.04
Wasowski 1980		26	0.37	81	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.36	65	0.05	29	0.13
Zak 1937		59	0.27	66	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.03	73	0.03
Zak 1951		41	0.32	70	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	55	0.05	51	0.05
Average		2	0.50	52	0.00	6	0.21	3	0.68	68	0.04	21	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.10	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.03	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	52	0.04	87	0.02
Random 3		89	0.04	30	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.37	42	0.09

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).