Shebanova 2002

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		52	0.41	38	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	31	0.26	46	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.42	41	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	53	0.06	62	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.48	47	0.00	32	0.09	23	0.35	5	0.55	11	0.44
Bacha 2000		74	0.31	79	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03
Badura 1965		66	0.35	88	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	42	0.12	55	0.08
Barbosa 1983		29	0.46	63	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.20	47	0.08	41	0.13
Biret 1990		16	0.50	26	0.00	12	0.13	11	0.56	33	0.34	12	0.44
Blet 2003		83	0.25	66	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		44	0.43	37	0.00	26	0.07	22	0.41	21	0.45	13	0.43
Blumental 1952		33	0.46	11	0.02	34	0.07	31	0.27	42	0.14	36	0.19
Boshniakovich 1969		49	0.41	64	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	80	0.03	77	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.38	43	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	55	0.06	63	0.05
Bunin 1987		42	0.43	13	0.01	29	0.08	27	0.32	14	0.41	21	0.36
Bunin 1987b		57	0.40	75	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.21	19	0.40	30	0.29
Chiu 1999		22	0.48	15	0.01	30	0.08	28	0.31	4	0.52	14	0.40
Cohen 1997		70	0.34	76	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	51	0.05	78	0.04
Cortot 1951		75	0.31	49	0.00	78	0.05	59	0.05	36	0.25	47	0.11
Csalog 1996		60	0.39	85	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.05
Czerny 1949		50	0.41	33	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04
Czerny 1990		11	0.51	16	0.01	25	0.07	30	0.29	44	0.15	35	0.21
Duchoud 2007		45	0.43	27	0.00	27	0.07	26	0.33	4	0.66	10	0.47
Ezaki 2006		32	0.46	45	0.00	39	0.05	43	0.14	62	0.05	52	0.08
Falvay 1989		2	0.60	2	0.14	3	0.30	4	0.65	23	0.53	2	0.59
Farrell 1958		54	0.40	35	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05	64	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.41	69	0.00	51	0.04	66	0.04	27	0.42	42	0.13
Fliere 1977		10	0.51	34	0.00	11	0.12	12	0.51	38	0.26	20	0.36
Fou 1978		62	0.38	67	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	80	0.03	82	0.03
Francois 1956		65	0.37	39	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	40	0.19	48	0.10
Friedman 1923		73	0.32	51	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	34	0.27	49	0.10
Friedman 1923b		78	0.30	86	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	34	0.27	44	0.12
Friedman 1930		27	0.47	31	0.00	16	0.10	13	0.51	6	0.68	3	0.59
Garcia 2007		79	0.29	80	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	46	0.06	66	0.05
Garcia 2007b		59	0.39	50	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	52	0.06	67	0.05
Gierzod 1998		5	0.55	17	0.01	9	0.15	7	0.60	39	0.27	17	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		40	0.44	70	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	46	0.08	60	0.07
Groot 1988		43	0.43	5	0.03	10	0.12	18	0.43	22	0.32	19	0.37
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.46	48	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	60	0.05	56	0.08
Hatto 1993		15	0.50	59	0.00	5	0.12	6	0.61	15	0.51	7	0.56
Hatto 1997		18	0.49	28	0.00	7	0.12	9	0.57	21	0.45	8	0.51
Horowitz 1949		76	0.30	71	0.00	73	0.07	48	0.07	22	0.36	37	0.16
Indjic 1988		14	0.50	23	0.01	6	0.21	5	0.62	19	0.50	6	0.56
Kapell 1951		69	0.35	72	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.03	83	0.03
Kissin 1993		21	0.48	12	0.01	22	0.07	29	0.30	40	0.31	28	0.30
Kushner 1989		4	0.56	19	0.01	13	0.14	8	0.58	41	0.26	18	0.39
Luisada 1991		53	0.41	22	0.01	52	0.04	63	0.04	41	0.18	53	0.08
Lushtak 2004		3	0.56	3	0.11	2	0.23	2	0.68	10	0.58	1	0.63
Malcuzynski 1961		36	0.45	24	0.01	37	0.06	34	0.25	62	0.05	45	0.11
Magaloff 1978		13	0.51	9	0.02	19	0.10	19	0.43	26	0.37	15	0.40
Magin 1975		34	0.45	81	0.00	33	0.07	35	0.25	48	0.08	40	0.14
Michalowski 1933		87	0.11	82	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	78	0.02	89	0.02
Milkina 1970		24	0.47	60	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.16	69	0.05	51	0.09
Mohovich 1999		26	0.47	14	0.01	20	0.10	17	0.44	37	0.21	29	0.30
Moravec 1969		30	0.46	53	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	54	0.07	61	0.06
Morozova 2008		41	0.44	8	0.02	38	0.06	42	0.15	44	0.10	43	0.12
Neighaus 1950		47	0.43	65	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	16	0.44	38	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.26	52	0.00	74	0.05	60	0.05	42	0.11	58	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.49	29	0.00	21	0.10	15	0.47	15	0.49	9	0.48
Osinska 1989		6	0.54	6	0.02	4	0.21	3	0.67	29	0.48	4	0.57
Pachmann 1927		84	0.25	56	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	59	0.05	73	0.04
Paderewski 1930		88	0.09	89	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.40	18	0.01	28	0.08	38	0.20	9	0.50	24	0.32
Pierdomenico 2008		63	0.37	68	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	40	0.20	50	0.09
Poblocka 1999		12	0.51	40	0.00	31	0.10	25	0.33	45	0.14	32	0.21
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.45	57	0.00	18	0.09	20	0.41	30	0.29	22	0.34
Rachmaninoff 1923		72	0.32	61	0.00	44	0.06	45	0.12	67	0.04	57	0.07
Rangell 2001		23	0.47	32	0.00	23	0.06	33	0.26	25	0.40	26	0.32
Richter 1976		58	0.39	42	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04	72	0.04
Rosen 1989		9	0.52	4	0.03	8	0.14	10	0.57	11	0.58	5	0.57
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.26	58	0.00	82	0.04	81	0.04	63	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.23	73	0.00	86	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.27	83	0.00	81	0.04	78	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.35	84	0.00	63	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.05	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.23	90	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		71	0.32	44	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.05	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.40	21	0.01	60	0.04	75	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.52	10	0.02	15	0.09	16	0.46	37	0.22	27	0.32
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.53	25	0.00	14	0.08	14	0.51	44	0.22	23	0.33
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.44	30	0.00	50	0.04	74	0.04	42	0.18	54	0.08
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		67	0.35	87	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.05	70	0.04
Sokolov 2002		64	0.37	46	0.00	71	0.05	62	0.05	68	0.03	68	0.04
Sztompka 1959		46	0.43	77	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	44	0.11	59	0.07
Tomsic 1995		38	0.44	62	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.17	30	0.26	33	0.21
Uninsky 1932		77	0.30	54	0.00	75	0.04	80	0.04	72	0.03	85	0.03
Uninsky 1971		25	0.47	7	0.02	36	0.06	32	0.27	43	0.16	34	0.21
Wasowski 1980		35	0.45	20	0.01	42	0.07	39	0.19	44	0.12	39	0.15
Zak 1937		17	0.49	36	0.00	17	0.09	21	0.41	28	0.40	16	0.40
Zak 1951		28	0.46	55	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.34	29	0.31	25	0.32
Average		1	0.65	1	0.42	1	0.42	1	0.80	50	0.08	31	0.25
Random 1		91	-0.15	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	78	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.04	86	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.13	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01

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).