Neighaus 1950

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		27	0.37	43	0.00	31	0.05	32	0.25	35	0.21	10	0.23
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.33	87	0.00	36	0.09	35	0.19	75	0.03	40	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.49	6	0.02	4	0.21	3	0.65	2	0.60	2	0.62
Bacha 2000		46	0.33	50	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.15	46	0.06	37	0.09
Badura 1965		34	0.35	18	0.01	33	0.06	29	0.27	54	0.06	26	0.13
Barbosa 1983		57	0.30	61	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	69	0.05	63	0.04
Biret 1990		53	0.32	41	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	84	0.03	67	0.04
Blet 2003		16	0.42	24	0.00	11	0.15	11	0.52	7	0.47	8	0.49
Block 1995		63	0.27	15	0.01	25	0.09	33	0.23	59	0.05	34	0.11
Blumental 1952		71	0.25	88	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	87	0.03	81	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		9	0.46	10	0.02	7	0.19	5	0.59	61	0.06	12	0.19
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.25	89	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	66	0.05	51	0.05
Bunin 1987		49	0.32	25	0.00	37	0.05	43	0.11	42	0.11	35	0.11
Bunin 1987b		61	0.29	13	0.01	63	0.04	64	0.04	45	0.10	49	0.06
Chiu 1999		72	0.25	63	0.00	79	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.02	85	0.02
Cohen 1997		69	0.26	74	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	85	0.03	66	0.04
Cortot 1951		81	0.22	51	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	53	0.06	58	0.05
Csalog 1996		79	0.23	82	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1949		6	0.48	19	0.01	12	0.13	10	0.54	44	0.15	9	0.28
Czerny 1990		8	0.47	28	0.00	8	0.13	7	0.57	63	0.05	15	0.17
Duchoud 2007		85	0.20	29	0.00	84	0.03	72	0.03	58	0.05	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		80	0.23	75	0.00	86	0.02	80	0.02	82	0.03	83	0.02
Falvay 1989		45	0.33	65	0.00	71	0.06	46	0.06	79	0.04	54	0.05
Farrell 1958		31	0.36	20	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.11	67	0.04	45	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.28	39	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.06	56	0.05
Fliere 1977		41	0.33	56	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.13	77	0.04	43	0.07
Fou 1978		28	0.37	77	0.00	23	0.07	15	0.45	63	0.04	24	0.13
Francois 1956		11	0.44	8	0.02	10	0.12	8	0.55	4	0.56	5	0.55
Friedman 1923		10	0.46	14	0.01	2	0.34	9	0.55	14	0.52	6	0.53
Friedman 1923b		5	0.48	1	0.43	1	0.43	6	0.59	11	0.54	4	0.56
Friedman 1930		35	0.35	45	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.26	43	0.15	11	0.20
Garcia 2007		87	0.17	38	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007b		75	0.24	90	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		7	0.47	4	0.08	9	0.13	14	0.49	55	0.05	18	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		23	0.38	37	0.00	27	0.07	31	0.25	70	0.03	39	0.09
Groot 1988		64	0.27	11	0.01	46	0.06	47	0.06	83	0.03	68	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.39	42	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.22	63	0.05	36	0.10
Hatto 1993		39	0.33	71	0.00	16	0.15	19	0.43	58	0.04	27	0.13
Hatto 1997		55	0.32	91	0.00	22	0.09	24	0.36	77	0.04	29	0.12
Horowitz 1949		78	0.24	52	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	63	0.05	62	0.04
Indjic 1988		43	0.33	66	0.00	17	0.14	22	0.41	80	0.03	33	0.11
Kapell 1951		54	0.32	67	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.03	74	0.03
Kissin 1993		4	0.49	3	0.09	6	0.23	4	0.61	32	0.42	7	0.51
Kushner 1989		30	0.37	72	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	82	0.03	59	0.04
Luisada 1991		58	0.30	35	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.03	70	0.03
Lushtak 2004		12	0.43	23	0.00	13	0.14	12	0.52	64	0.04	22	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.33	62	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Magaloff 1978		33	0.36	59	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.12	68	0.03	47	0.06
Magin 1975		38	0.34	26	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.11	69	0.04	44	0.07
Michalowski 1933		84	0.21	36	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	40	0.13	55	0.05
Milkina 1970		47	0.33	76	0.00	66	0.05	56	0.05	83	0.03	60	0.04
Mohovich 1999		70	0.25	78	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04
Moravec 1969		67	0.26	79	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.02
Morozova 2008		32	0.36	57	0.00	43	0.06	39	0.13	65	0.05	41	0.08
Neighaus 1950		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.26	44	0.00	67	0.05	55	0.05	49	0.07	48	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		26	0.37	47	0.00	41	0.05	44	0.10	61	0.05	46	0.07
Osinska 1989		37	0.34	40	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	87	0.02	71	0.03
Pachmann 1927		52	0.32	58	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	31	0.31	20	0.14
Paderewski 1930		22	0.39	27	0.00	14	0.16	13	0.50	3	0.66	3	0.57
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.33	22	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	46	0.07	50	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.27	33	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		48	0.32	21	0.00	30	0.06	36	0.19	77	0.04	38	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		25	0.37	32	0.00	24	0.08	17	0.43	74	0.03	31	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.25	34	0.00	52	0.06	51	0.06	73	0.04	53	0.05
Rangell 2001		17	0.40	12	0.01	28	0.08	26	0.35	44	0.10	13	0.19
Richter 1976		14	0.42	5	0.04	18	0.11	25	0.36	57	0.04	28	0.12
Rosen 1989		59	0.30	83	0.00	72	0.02	82	0.02	64	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.32	55	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	39	0.20	25	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.19	80	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.04	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.22	31	0.00	74	0.02	81	0.02	61	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.26	49	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.15	73	0.00	87	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		76	0.24	68	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		24	0.38	16	0.01	26	0.08	23	0.37	72	0.03	30	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.40	84	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.42	55	0.06	19	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.42	85	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.43	53	0.06	16	0.16
Schilhawsky 1960		50	0.32	9	0.02	65	0.04	61	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Shebanova 2002		13	0.43	30	0.00	15	0.15	16	0.44	50	0.06	17	0.16
Smith 1975		36	0.35	17	0.01	19	0.08	18	0.43	53	0.07	14	0.17
Sokolov 2002		29	0.37	69	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	57	0.05	52	0.05
Sztompka 1959		1	0.54	2	0.12	3	0.25	1	0.73	7	0.68	1	0.70
Tomsic 1995		83	0.21	54	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		77	0.24	48	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	69	0.04	79	0.03
Uninsky 1971		18	0.40	60	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.32	78	0.04	32	0.11
Wasowski 1980		21	0.39	46	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.32	67	0.05	23	0.13
Zak 1937		56	0.31	86	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Zak 1951		60	0.30	81	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	88	0.02	76	0.03
Average		2	0.53	7	0.02	5	0.27	2	0.67	85	0.03	21	0.14
Random 1		89	-0.01	53	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	26	0.30	42	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.08	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.06	70	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	43	0.13	57	0.05

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).