Brailowsky 1960

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		33	0.51	80	0.00	47	0.10	46	0.10	80	0.03	54	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		6	0.62	11	0.02	12	0.14	11	0.63	47	0.05	23	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		61	0.45	29	0.00	53	0.05	70	0.05	78	0.03	73	0.04
Bacha 2000		29	0.52	76	0.00	26	0.07	45	0.17	53	0.05	40	0.09
Badura 1965		76	0.39	21	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	86	0.02	84	0.03
Barbosa 1983		12	0.59	3	0.15	4	0.23	6	0.69	15	0.54	2	0.61
Biret 1990		14	0.58	49	0.00	16	0.16	15	0.54	49	0.05	27	0.16
Blet 2003		49	0.47	41	0.00	51	0.06	54	0.06	64	0.04	52	0.05
Block 1995		17	0.56	4	0.09	8	0.16	9	0.66	15	0.47	4	0.56
Blumental 1952		13	0.58	8	0.03	9	0.21	7	0.67	51	0.05	25	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		63	0.44	84	0.00	70	0.06	49	0.06	80	0.04	55	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		83	0.31	85	0.00	79	0.04	81	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		84	0.29	86	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		28	0.52	70	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.22	51	0.05	37	0.10
Cohen 1997		79	0.35	36	0.00	77	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	74	0.04
Cortot 1951		69	0.41	71	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.03	76	0.04
Csalog 1996		71	0.40	54	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.05
Czerny 1949		65	0.42	72	0.00	74	0.05	68	0.05	86	0.03	72	0.04
Czerny 1990		16	0.57	58	0.00	18	0.18	17	0.53	58	0.05	26	0.16
Duchoud 2007		86	0.27	63	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Ezaki 2006		10	0.61	17	0.01	14	0.14	14	0.60	42	0.14	17	0.29
Falvay 1989		4	0.63	12	0.01	10	0.15	8	0.66	21	0.47	3	0.56
Farrell 1958		54	0.46	68	0.00	59	0.05	67	0.05	67	0.05	47	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		20	0.55	13	0.01	22	0.10	21	0.46	24	0.39	12	0.42
Fliere 1977		2	0.65	1	0.21	1	0.21	1	0.78	38	0.19	14	0.38
Fou 1978		19	0.55	42	0.00	24	0.08	24	0.41	69	0.04	32	0.13
Francois 1956		72	0.40	69	0.00	75	0.05	56	0.05	87	0.03	77	0.04
Friedman 1923		41	0.49	59	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	68	0.05	58	0.05
Friedman 1923b		50	0.47	50	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.06	46	0.06
Friedman 1930		48	0.47	88	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	67	0.04	69	0.04
Garcia 2007		82	0.32	64	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		67	0.42	51	0.00	56	0.04	77	0.04	48	0.05	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		37	0.50	60	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.23	85	0.03	45	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.53	77	0.00	46	0.09	47	0.09	79	0.03	56	0.05
Groot 1988		11	0.59	9	0.03	7	0.16	10	0.66	14	0.43	6	0.53
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.55	19	0.01	27	0.07	27	0.40	63	0.05	31	0.14
Hatto 1993		46	0.48	39	0.00	52	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.05	57	0.05
Hatto 1997		44	0.48	87	0.00	58	0.04	79	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04
Horowitz 1949		38	0.50	5	0.06	20	0.10	23	0.45	33	0.36	13	0.40
Indjic 1988		45	0.48	44	0.00	57	0.04	78	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04
Kapell 1951		42	0.48	48	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.21	79	0.03	44	0.08
Kissin 1993		70	0.41	55	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	85	0.03	65	0.04
Kushner 1989		25	0.53	73	0.00	37	0.08	31	0.32	58	0.05	33	0.13
Luisada 1991		7	0.62	7	0.04	5	0.23	4	0.77	23	0.34	7	0.51
Lushtak 2004		18	0.55	14	0.01	17	0.17	19	0.48	41	0.14	20	0.26
Malcuzynski 1961		68	0.41	30	0.00	69	0.06	53	0.06	80	0.03	62	0.04
Magaloff 1978		9	0.61	38	0.00	15	0.11	16	0.54	23	0.32	11	0.42
Magin 1975		40	0.49	31	0.00	36	0.07	32	0.31	86	0.03	38	0.10
Michalowski 1933		80	0.34	81	0.00	81	0.04	80	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Milkina 1970		15	0.57	74	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.45	72	0.05	28	0.15
Mohovich 1999		5	0.63	10	0.02	6	0.15	5	0.70	25	0.44	5	0.55
Moravec 1969		31	0.51	32	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.28	30	0.28	18	0.28
Morozova 2008		64	0.42	82	0.00	64	0.06	50	0.06	77	0.03	68	0.04
Neighaus 1950		58	0.45	46	0.00	65	0.05	71	0.05	80	0.04	75	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.45	20	0.00	33	0.09	38	0.23	76	0.03	43	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.46	89	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	71	0.04	64	0.04
Osinska 1989		21	0.55	26	0.00	30	0.09	30	0.36	76	0.04	36	0.12
Pachmann 1927		81	0.33	75	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Paderewski 1930		87	0.24	61	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.04	81	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		62	0.44	27	0.00	68	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.04	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		88	0.23	90	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		23	0.54	18	0.01	11	0.12	13	0.62	58	0.05	21	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.48	56	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.23	68	0.04	39	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.62	16	0.01	13	0.14	12	0.62	52	0.05	22	0.18
Rangell 2001		85	0.28	62	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.03	90	0.02
Richter 1976		77	0.38	78	0.00	76	0.06	51	0.06	73	0.04	49	0.05
Rosen 1989		26	0.53	65	0.00	23	0.10	28	0.38	70	0.05	30	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		30	0.51	15	0.01	21	0.11	18	0.49	17	0.52	8	0.50
Rosenthal 1931		35	0.50	22	0.00	29	0.11	25	0.41	10	0.58	9	0.49
Rosenthal 1931b		51	0.47	33	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.28	16	0.50	15	0.37
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.46	37	0.00	40	0.07	37	0.26	23	0.41	16	0.33
Rosenthal 1931d		34	0.50	47	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.41	13	0.58	10	0.49
Rossi 2007		78	0.36	91	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.03	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		52	0.47	23	0.00	45	0.09	44	0.18	56	0.04	42	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		43	0.48	28	0.00	19	0.16	20	0.47	40	0.17	19	0.28
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.53	40	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.29	50	0.07	29	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		75	0.39	52	0.00	73	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.03	67	0.04
Shebanova 2002		36	0.50	34	0.00	41	0.07	36	0.27	51	0.06	34	0.13
Smith 1975		3	0.64	2	0.18	2	0.19	3	0.77	8	0.54	1	0.64
Sokolov 2002		73	0.40	83	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	64	0.04	60	0.04
Sztompka 1959		39	0.50	24	0.00	31	0.07	43	0.19	75	0.04	41	0.09
Tomsic 1995		74	0.39	66	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	66	0.05	63	0.04
Uninsky 1932		59	0.45	45	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	72	0.04	71	0.04
Uninsky 1971		66	0.42	57	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	72	0.05	50	0.05
Wasowski 1980		32	0.51	35	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.36	69	0.04	35	0.12
Zak 1937		53	0.47	79	0.00	55	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.05	61	0.04
Zak 1951		57	0.45	25	0.00	60	0.05	69	0.05	66	0.05	48	0.05
Average		1	0.67	6	0.04	3	0.20	2	0.78	70	0.04	24	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.17	67	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.03	53	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	25	0.27	53	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.08	43	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	58	0.04	85	0.03

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).