Average

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		6	0.82	63	0.00	13	0.11	10	0.59	1	0.84	12	0.70
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.80	26	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.35	1	0.82	29	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.75	45	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.22	1	0.79	40	0.42
Bacha 2000		63	0.66	71	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	1	0.72	69	0.17
Badura 1965		54	0.69	15	0.01	52	0.07	52	0.07	1	0.77	53	0.23
Barbosa 1983		67	0.65	35	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	1	0.78	57	0.20
Biret 1990		22	0.78	21	0.01	19	0.10	19	0.52	1	0.84	20	0.66
Blet 2003		60	0.67	77	0.00	65	0.07	54	0.07	1	0.73	52	0.23
Block 1995		68	0.64	67	0.00	53	0.06	56	0.06	1	0.79	55	0.22
Blumental 1952		33	0.76	48	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.39	1	0.84	27	0.57
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.79	4	0.04	7	0.13	20	0.51	1	0.85	19	0.66
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.67	31	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	2	0.78	64	0.18
Bunin 1987		84	0.57	83	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	2	0.58	85	0.13
Bunin 1987b		87	0.55	85	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	2	0.58	83	0.13
Chiu 1999		53	0.70	68	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	1	0.76	59	0.19
Cohen 1997		88	0.52	42	0.00	87	0.04	71	0.04	1	0.62	73	0.16
Cortot 1951		71	0.63	72	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	1	0.76	77	0.15
Csalog 1996		76	0.59	30	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	3	0.68	72	0.16
Czerny 1949		21	0.79	13	0.01	22	0.08	17	0.54	2	0.81	18	0.66
Czerny 1990		4	0.83	29	0.00	14	0.11	11	0.58	1	0.89	10	0.72
Duchoud 2007		79	0.58	87	0.00	78	0.02	88	0.02	2	0.69	88	0.12
Ezaki 2006		11	0.81	50	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.36	1	0.86	28	0.56
Falvay 1989		55	0.69	25	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	1	0.71	60	0.19
Farrell 1958		44	0.72	40	0.00	42	0.08	39	0.23	1	0.83	39	0.44
Ferenczy 1958		65	0.66	58	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	2	0.64	82	0.14
Fliere 1977		1	0.87	1	0.37	1	0.37	2	0.74	1	0.89	2	0.81
Fou 1978		17	0.79	47	0.00	23	0.09	21	0.48	1	0.85	21	0.64
Francois 1956		64	0.66	38	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	1	0.78	68	0.18
Friedman 1923		49	0.71	65	0.00	59	0.06	55	0.06	3	0.77	56	0.21
Friedman 1923b		48	0.71	36	0.00	57	0.07	53	0.07	3	0.77	54	0.23
Friedman 1930		45	0.72	59	0.00	60	0.05	57	0.05	3	0.74	62	0.19
Garcia 2007		58	0.68	73	0.00	61	0.05	63	0.05	2	0.76	63	0.19
Garcia 2007b		50	0.71	54	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.14	2	0.78	44	0.33
Gierzod 1998		2	0.85	2	0.15	2	0.35	1	0.80	1	0.91	1	0.85
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.75	78	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	1	0.86	43	0.33
Groot 1988		59	0.68	7	0.03	25	0.08	36	0.27	1	0.78	38	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.83	3	0.08	3	0.16	3	0.67	1	0.87	5	0.76
Hatto 1993		24	0.78	16	0.01	11	0.16	16	0.55	3	0.82	17	0.67
Hatto 1997		18	0.79	17	0.01	10	0.10	15	0.55	3	0.84	15	0.68
Horowitz 1949		70	0.63	84	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	1	0.73	86	0.12
Indjic 1988		16	0.79	5	0.04	8	0.13	14	0.56	3	0.83	14	0.68
Kapell 1951		29	0.76	8	0.03	12	0.10	22	0.46	1	0.86	22	0.63
Kissin 1993		10	0.81	14	0.01	21	0.15	12	0.57	1	0.87	11	0.70
Kushner 1989		7	0.82	10	0.02	15	0.12	9	0.61	1	0.89	6	0.74
Luisada 1991		23	0.78	27	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.28	1	0.85	34	0.49
Lushtak 2004		35	0.75	64	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.25	1	0.85	37	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.68	28	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	1	0.79	51	0.24
Magaloff 1978		47	0.71	49	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.13	1	0.76	45	0.31
Magin 1975		20	0.79	24	0.00	17	0.10	7	0.62	1	0.84	8	0.72
Michalowski 1933		74	0.62	66	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	2	0.70	81	0.14
Milkina 1970		8	0.82	19	0.01	9	0.13	4	0.66	1	0.89	3	0.77
Mohovich 1999		39	0.75	39	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.25	1	0.87	36	0.47
Moravec 1969		69	0.64	44	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	2	0.76	74	0.15
Morozova 2008		32	0.76	51	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.31	1	0.82	33	0.50
Neighaus 1950		40	0.74	60	0.00	47	0.08	49	0.08	1	0.77	50	0.25
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.68	52	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	1	0.69	61	0.19
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.76	20	0.01	24	0.09	24	0.44	1	0.84	23	0.61
Osinska 1989		5	0.83	11	0.01	6	0.14	5	0.65	1	0.88	4	0.76
Pachmann 1927		80	0.58	88	0.00	88	0.04	66	0.04	2	0.61	71	0.16
Paderewski 1930		78	0.59	79	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	1	0.74	76	0.15
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.70	80	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	1	0.75	58	0.19
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.56	81	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	1	0.70	79	0.14
Poblocka 1999		34	0.75	55	0.00	33	0.13	26	0.41	1	0.83	25	0.58
Rabcewiczowa 1932		42	0.72	22	0.00	26	0.08	31	0.32	1	0.78	31	0.50
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.76	6	0.03	16	0.08	23	0.45	1	0.76	26	0.58
Rangell 2001		83	0.57	53	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	1	0.75	70	0.17
Richter 1976		66	0.65	32	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	1	0.78	75	0.15
Rosen 1989		25	0.78	43	0.00	31	0.09	25	0.43	1	0.83	24	0.60
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.62	74	0.00	77	0.02	86	0.02	6	0.79	84	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.58	82	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	5	0.75	87	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.58	57	0.00	85	0.04	72	0.04	5	0.77	66	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.60	75	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	5	0.79	67	0.18
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.57	76	0.00	86	0.04	69	0.04	5	0.78	65	0.18
Rossi 2007		72	0.62	89	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	2	0.66	78	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.72	69	0.00	50	0.08	50	0.08	1	0.79	49	0.25
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.66	18	0.01	27	0.07	41	0.21	2	0.78	42	0.40
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.77	33	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.33	1	0.82	30	0.52
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.76	37	0.00	39	0.07	32	0.32	1	0.79	32	0.50
Shebanova 2002		12	0.81	12	0.01	5	0.15	6	0.63	1	0.85	7	0.73
Smith 1975		36	0.75	46	0.00	46	0.09	48	0.09	1	0.84	47	0.27
Sokolov 2002		52	0.70	41	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	1	0.83	46	0.27
Sztompka 1959		9	0.82	9	0.02	4	0.12	8	0.61	1	0.84	9	0.72
Tomsic 1995		77	0.59	56	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	5	0.64	80	0.14
Uninsky 1932		46	0.71	70	0.00	49	0.09	47	0.09	2	0.74	48	0.26
Uninsky 1971		41	0.72	61	0.00	38	0.08	34	0.28	2	0.80	35	0.47
Wasowski 1980		30	0.76	62	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.20	1	0.83	41	0.41
Zak 1937		13	0.80	23	0.00	20	0.14	18	0.53	2	0.84	16	0.67
Zak 1951		15	0.80	34	0.00	18	0.12	13	0.56	2	0.84	13	0.69
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		91	-0.14	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	69	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.07	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	78	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.11	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.04	91	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).