Badura 1965

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		4	0.64	19	0.01	12	0.16	8	0.58	37	0.25	14	0.38
Anderszewski 2003		10	0.62	16	0.01	19	0.12	16	0.49	41	0.22	19	0.33
Ashkenazy 1981		27	0.55	21	0.01	25	0.06	26	0.37	44	0.13	28	0.22
Bacha 2000		60	0.44	62	0.00	62	0.05	64	0.05	75	0.03	65	0.04
Badura 1965		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Barbosa 1983		50	0.47	67	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.05
Biret 1990		52	0.47	6	0.02	27	0.05	46	0.09	87	0.03	63	0.05
Blet 2003		43	0.50	33	0.00	50	0.09	45	0.09	57	0.05	51	0.07
Block 1995		47	0.49	54	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	51	0.06	52	0.07
Blumental 1952		67	0.41	78	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.04	72	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		7	0.63	7	0.02	3	0.15	4	0.63	23	0.47	2	0.54
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.39	91	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	74	0.04	80	0.03
Bunin 1987		51	0.47	53	0.00	30	0.10	29	0.36	13	0.48	10	0.42
Bunin 1987b		53	0.47	44	0.00	29	0.05	28	0.36	11	0.48	8	0.42
Chiu 1999		39	0.52	14	0.01	46	0.07	50	0.07	61	0.05	53	0.06
Cohen 1997		81	0.31	48	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		78	0.35	73	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	53	0.05	75	0.04
Csalog 1996		72	0.40	24	0.01	57	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05	60	0.05
Czerny 1949		22	0.57	82	0.00	22	0.13	23	0.41	42	0.19	23	0.28
Czerny 1990		35	0.54	39	0.00	45	0.09	43	0.19	77	0.04	47	0.09
Duchoud 2007		57	0.45	9	0.01	33	0.06	40	0.24	14	0.39	20	0.31
Ezaki 2006		17	0.58	55	0.00	40	0.08	37	0.27	70	0.04	41	0.10
Falvay 1989		77	0.38	89	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.03	88	0.02
Farrell 1958		63	0.43	74	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	79	0.04	71	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.50	27	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	40	0.20	45	0.10
Fliere 1977		12	0.61	23	0.01	20	0.12	18	0.47	70	0.04	31	0.14
Fou 1978		18	0.58	13	0.01	24	0.06	30	0.35	57	0.05	33	0.13
Francois 1956		71	0.40	83	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	72	0.04	77	0.04
Friedman 1923		11	0.62	29	0.00	13	0.16	14	0.52	17	0.48	5	0.50
Friedman 1923b		9	0.63	4	0.03	10	0.13	13	0.54	17	0.51	4	0.52
Friedman 1930		23	0.57	17	0.01	26	0.06	24	0.38	27	0.44	12	0.41
Garcia 2007		69	0.41	68	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		65	0.42	63	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	83	0.03	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		13	0.61	69	0.00	6	0.10	3	0.63	40	0.21	17	0.36
Gornostaeva 1994		46	0.49	57	0.00	48	0.08	49	0.08	87	0.03	62	0.05
Groot 1988		64	0.43	45	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	82	0.04	64	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.67	3	0.04	5	0.16	15	0.52	36	0.28	15	0.38
Hatto 1993		8	0.63	47	0.00	11	0.16	7	0.60	30	0.27	13	0.40
Hatto 1997		5	0.64	36	0.00	8	0.11	6	0.62	32	0.22	16	0.37
Horowitz 1949		49	0.47	28	0.00	54	0.06	52	0.06	47	0.08	49	0.07
Indjic 1988		6	0.64	10	0.01	9	0.18	5	0.62	30	0.28	9	0.42
Kapell 1951		62	0.44	34	0.00	41	0.09	38	0.26	74	0.04	44	0.10
Kissin 1993		14	0.60	64	0.00	14	0.17	12	0.55	39	0.31	11	0.41
Kushner 1989		28	0.55	50	0.00	36	0.07	33	0.33	60	0.05	34	0.13
Luisada 1991		29	0.55	38	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.19	47	0.08	36	0.12
Lushtak 2004		38	0.52	71	0.00	47	0.08	48	0.08	53	0.05	55	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		56	0.46	56	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.13	48	0.08
Magaloff 1978		68	0.41	58	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04
Magin 1975		34	0.54	81	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.31	48	0.05	37	0.12
Michalowski 1933		44	0.49	18	0.01	42	0.07	41	0.21	22	0.38	22	0.28
Milkina 1970		19	0.58	8	0.02	16	0.10	10	0.56	52	0.06	29	0.18
Mohovich 1999		54	0.47	75	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	81	0.04	73	0.04
Moravec 1969		83	0.30	51	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.04	79	0.03
Morozova 2008		3	0.67	1	0.35	1	0.35	2	0.71	6	0.57	1	0.64
Neighaus 1950		32	0.54	46	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.30	63	0.05	40	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		61	0.44	11	0.01	63	0.05	59	0.05	54	0.05	58	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.58	37	0.00	7	0.15	11	0.55	33	0.33	7	0.43
Osinska 1989		33	0.54	65	0.00	39	0.09	39	0.24	72	0.04	43	0.10
Pachmann 1927		59	0.44	79	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	22	0.38	38	0.12
Paderewski 1930		76	0.39	30	0.00	75	0.05	65	0.05	45	0.09	50	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.49	59	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.28	90	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	60	0.05	69	0.04
Poblocka 1999		36	0.54	66	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.35	61	0.05	32	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.42	41	0.00	66	0.04	77	0.04	88	0.03	82	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		40	0.52	31	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.05	57	0.05
Rangell 2001		82	0.31	84	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.05	74	0.04
Richter 1976		15	0.60	25	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.47	24	0.49	6	0.48
Rosen 1989		41	0.52	20	0.01	38	0.10	35	0.30	54	0.05	39	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.34	76	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.25	85	0.00	86	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.23	42	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.26	86	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.22	60	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		73	0.39	72	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.04	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		70	0.41	52	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		80	0.31	35	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.46	70	0.00	60	0.06	54	0.06	74	0.04	61	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		21	0.57	22	0.01	28	0.05	25	0.38	40	0.19	24	0.27
Shebanova 2002		30	0.55	80	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.42	72	0.04	35	0.13
Smith 1975		58	0.45	32	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	81	0.03	68	0.04
Sokolov 2002		48	0.49	43	0.00	37	0.11	32	0.33	34	0.23	21	0.28
Sztompka 1959		25	0.56	49	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.37	48	0.07	30	0.16
Tomsic 1995		74	0.39	87	0.00	69	0.05	62	0.05	56	0.07	54	0.06
Uninsky 1932		31	0.55	15	0.01	23	0.08	21	0.42	38	0.30	18	0.35
Uninsky 1971		16	0.59	5	0.03	4	0.22	9	0.58	25	0.47	3	0.52
Wasowski 1980		37	0.54	88	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.17	58	0.06	42	0.10
Zak 1937		26	0.55	26	0.00	17	0.10	20	0.44	39	0.15	25	0.26
Zak 1951		24	0.56	12	0.01	15	0.10	19	0.46	37	0.15	26	0.26
Average		1	0.69	2	0.29	2	0.40	1	0.77	52	0.07	27	0.23
Random 1		89	-0.03	61	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	7	0.48	46	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.10	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	47	0.05	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.05	40	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	35	0.18	56	0.06

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).