Random 2

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		54	0.00	24	0.01	28	0.08	23	0.29	89	0.02	21	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		62	-0.01	33	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	91	0.01	69	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		88	-0.10	76	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.01	88	0.01
Bacha 2000		75	-0.05	51	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.08	89	0.02	36	0.04
Badura 1965		91	-0.15	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.01
Barbosa 1983		9	0.08	26	0.00	14	0.10	13	0.42	89	0.02	18	0.09
Biret 1990		21	0.06	15	0.01	21	0.06	27	0.27	89	0.02	27	0.07
Blet 2003		86	-0.09	81	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Block 1995		40	0.01	28	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	90	0.01	75	0.02
Blumental 1952		33	0.03	90	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.16	90	0.01	41	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		51	0.00	13	0.01	36	0.05	40	0.11	91	0.01	47	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.04	8	0.02	8	0.12	14	0.39	81	0.03	8	0.11
Bunin 1987		48	0.00	37	0.00	61	0.04	51	0.04	90	0.01	77	0.02
Bunin 1987b		49	0.00	60	0.00	60	0.03	69	0.03	91	0.01	61	0.02
Chiu 1999		65	-0.03	41	0.00	57	0.03	65	0.03	90	0.01	52	0.02
Cohen 1997		25	0.04	22	0.01	29	0.06	36	0.16	89	0.02	33	0.06
Cortot 1951		2	0.13	7	0.02	13	0.09	6	0.48	77	0.03	7	0.12
Csalog 1996		90	-0.12	84	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	91	0.01	68	0.02
Czerny 1949		4	0.11	17	0.01	12	0.11	10	0.44	88	0.02	19	0.09
Czerny 1990		44	0.01	47	0.00	53	0.04	56	0.04	91	0.01	79	0.02
Duchoud 2007		77	-0.06	63	0.00	66	0.03	62	0.03	90	0.01	73	0.02
Ezaki 2006		20	0.06	45	0.00	22	0.07	17	0.37	89	0.02	15	0.09
Falvay 1989		58	-0.01	77	0.00	58	0.03	60	0.03	90	0.02	53	0.02
Farrell 1958		6	0.09	29	0.00	17	0.08	20	0.32	89	0.01	32	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		76	-0.05	85	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	89	0.01	72	0.02
Fliere 1977		69	-0.04	82	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	91	0.01	50	0.02
Fou 1978		79	-0.06	71	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	91	0.01	57	0.02
Francois 1956		24	0.04	44	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.23	89	0.02	28	0.07
Friedman 1923		85	-0.08	62	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		84	-0.08	58	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01
Friedman 1930		78	-0.06	48	0.00	78	0.03	72	0.03	90	0.01	71	0.02
Garcia 2007		66	-0.03	72	0.00	63	0.04	52	0.04	90	0.01	74	0.02
Garcia 2007b		74	-0.05	67	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	91	0.01	82	0.02
Gierzod 1998		11	0.07	79	0.00	16	0.07	8	0.46	89	0.02	13	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		61	-0.01	14	0.01	73	0.03	77	0.03	91	0.01	78	0.02
Groot 1988		80	-0.07	56	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	91	0.01	80	0.02
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.04	40	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.08	90	0.01	48	0.03
Hatto 1993		8	0.08	49	0.00	9	0.11	4	0.50	87	0.03	6	0.12
Hatto 1997		23	0.05	18	0.01	18	0.08	12	0.42	88	0.03	9	0.11
Horowitz 1949		1	0.14	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.64	80	0.03	1	0.14
Indjic 1988		17	0.06	11	0.02	10	0.12	5	0.49	88	0.03	5	0.12
Kapell 1951		53	0.00	73	0.00	71	0.03	66	0.03	91	0.01	59	0.02
Kissin 1993		64	-0.02	59	0.00	70	0.04	50	0.04	91	0.01	66	0.02
Kushner 1989		59	-0.01	91	0.00	59	0.03	68	0.03	90	0.01	58	0.02
Luisada 1991		30	0.03	21	0.01	34	0.06	33	0.19	89	0.02	29	0.06
Lushtak 2004		39	0.02	42	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.09	89	0.02	40	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		27	0.04	68	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.20	91	0.01	37	0.04
Magaloff 1978		3	0.12	20	0.01	5	0.13	2	0.53	89	0.02	11	0.10
Magin 1975		63	-0.02	86	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	91	0.01	85	0.01
Michalowski 1933		7	0.09	5	0.06	3	0.15	9	0.46	54	0.04	2	0.14
Milkina 1970		15	0.07	52	0.00	24	0.07	16	0.37	89	0.02	17	0.09
Mohovich 1999		12	0.07	27	0.00	25	0.08	19	0.33	89	0.02	22	0.08
Moravec 1969		16	0.07	12	0.01	6	0.11	7	0.47	88	0.02	10	0.10
Morozova 2008		32	0.03	55	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.15	90	0.01	39	0.04
Neighaus 1950		83	-0.08	69	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Niedzielski 1931		43	0.01	57	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	89	0.02	43	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		55	0.00	36	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.09	89	0.01	44	0.03
Osinska 1989		37	0.02	64	0.00	49	0.04	55	0.04	89	0.01	51	0.02
Pachmann 1927		72	-0.04	61	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	91	0.01	64	0.02
Paderewski 1930		87	-0.10	30	0.00	62	0.03	64	0.03	91	0.01	63	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		82	-0.07	35	0.00	75	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	84	0.01
Pierdomenico 2008		67	-0.03	54	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	90	0.01	42	0.03
Poblocka 1999		14	0.07	50	0.00	23	0.06	25	0.28	88	0.02	24	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.02	34	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	91	0.01	56	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.06	32	0.00	11	0.09	18	0.35	91	0.01	31	0.06
Rangell 2001		19	0.06	6	0.05	15	0.08	28	0.23	90	0.01	35	0.05
Richter 1976		56	0.00	53	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.14	91	0.01	38	0.04
Rosen 1989		42	0.01	25	0.01	26	0.06	26	0.27	90	0.02	26	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		28	0.04	4	0.07	7	0.11	21	0.31	82	0.03	14	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		31	0.03	16	0.01	27	0.06	24	0.29	89	0.02	20	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		45	0.01	65	0.00	20	0.06	22	0.31	88	0.02	23	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.01	66	0.00	54	0.04	49	0.04	90	0.01	81	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		13	0.07	3	0.12	4	0.14	11	0.43	72	0.04	4	0.13
Rossi 2007		71	-0.04	43	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.18	87	0.02	30	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		70	-0.04	46	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	91	0.01	55	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.02	74	0.00	46	0.04	48	0.04	89	0.02	49	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		35	0.02	70	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	90	0.02	45	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		22	0.06	75	0.00	31	0.05	31	0.22	89	0.01	34	0.05
Shebanova 2002		46	0.01	87	0.00	55	0.04	54	0.04	89	0.02	46	0.03
Smith 1975		68	-0.03	88	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	91	0.01	54	0.02
Sokolov 2002		10	0.07	31	0.00	19	0.08	15	0.37	89	0.02	16	0.09
Sztompka 1959		47	0.01	19	0.01	56	0.03	73	0.03	91	0.01	65	0.02
Tomsic 1995		36	0.02	38	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.23	88	0.02	25	0.07
Uninsky 1932		5	0.09	2	0.16	2	0.18	3	0.52	87	0.02	12	0.10
Uninsky 1971		50	0.00	39	0.00	48	0.05	46	0.05	89	0.01	67	0.02
Wasowski 1980		81	-0.07	23	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.01
Zak 1937		60	-0.01	80	0.00	69	0.03	58	0.03	90	0.01	60	0.02
Zak 1951		57	0.00	78	0.00	64	0.03	61	0.03	90	0.01	62	0.02
Average		52	0.00	89	0.00	72	0.03	59	0.03	90	0.01	70	0.02
Random 1		89	-0.11	9	0.02	50	0.03	63	0.03	89	0.01	76	0.02
Random 2		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 3		73	-0.05	10	0.02	40	0.06	39	0.13	44	0.13	3	0.13

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).