Duchoud 2007

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		10	0.50	12	0.02	10	0.11	8	0.49	52	0.05	15	0.16
Anderszewski 2003		46	0.40	7	0.03	33	0.05	38	0.17	81	0.03	47	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.59	2	0.04	2	0.19	5	0.59	22	0.37	2	0.47
Bacha 2000		17	0.48	20	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.31	38	0.15	8	0.22
Badura 1965		23	0.45	57	0.00	12	0.08	14	0.39	40	0.24	5	0.31
Barbosa 1983		76	0.32	87	0.00	75	0.05	66	0.05	74	0.04	62	0.04
Biret 1990		43	0.41	88	0.00	59	0.05	55	0.05	72	0.04	69	0.04
Blet 2003		73	0.33	67	0.00	63	0.05	64	0.05	77	0.03	64	0.04
Block 1995		71	0.35	69	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.04	67	0.04
Blumental 1952		68	0.36	64	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	88	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		15	0.49	14	0.01	18	0.06	19	0.32	76	0.04	31	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		86	0.27	28	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02
Bunin 1987		62	0.37	58	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	45	0.12	44	0.08
Bunin 1987b		67	0.36	74	0.00	48	0.06	46	0.06	43	0.16	35	0.10
Chiu 1999		22	0.46	22	0.00	25	0.07	13	0.40	40	0.13	6	0.23
Cohen 1997		72	0.33	29	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		74	0.33	75	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		77	0.32	11	0.02	52	0.05	62	0.05	77	0.03	63	0.04
Czerny 1949		35	0.43	40	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.15	65	0.04	43	0.08
Czerny 1990		61	0.37	76	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.03	84	0.03
Duchoud 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ezaki 2006		51	0.39	72	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.04	54	0.04
Falvay 1989		75	0.32	47	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	86	0.03	77	0.03
Farrell 1958		27	0.45	41	0.00	20	0.05	29	0.25	54	0.06	21	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.25	82	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.03	90	0.02
Fliere 1977		9	0.50	6	0.03	6	0.26	9	0.48	80	0.04	17	0.14
Fou 1978		12	0.49	62	0.00	23	0.06	22	0.31	70	0.04	27	0.11
Francois 1956		70	0.35	43	0.00	66	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		64	0.37	44	0.00	72	0.05	65	0.05	74	0.04	72	0.04
Friedman 1923b		65	0.36	37	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.05	68	0.04
Friedman 1930		59	0.37	24	0.00	73	0.06	48	0.06	77	0.04	53	0.05
Garcia 2007		16	0.48	68	0.00	26	0.07	21	0.32	45	0.13	10	0.20
Garcia 2007b		13	0.49	32	0.00	11	0.08	15	0.38	57	0.04	26	0.12
Gierzod 1998		8	0.52	45	0.00	13	0.09	10	0.45	72	0.04	20	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.43	19	0.01	32	0.05	28	0.26	55	0.04	37	0.10
Groot 1988		40	0.42	59	0.00	15	0.09	24	0.29	69	0.04	33	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.43	89	0.00	29	0.06	27	0.27	54	0.05	25	0.12
Hatto 1993		30	0.44	85	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.18	83	0.03	48	0.07
Hatto 1997		26	0.45	90	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.19	52	0.06	29	0.11
Horowitz 1949		63	0.37	39	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.05	61	0.04
Indjic 1988		24	0.45	79	0.00	35	0.05	33	0.19	66	0.04	39	0.09
Kapell 1951		28	0.44	65	0.00	19	0.06	20	0.32	80	0.03	34	0.10
Kissin 1993		25	0.45	33	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.17	72	0.04	42	0.08
Kushner 1989		11	0.49	25	0.00	17	0.05	16	0.37	68	0.04	22	0.12
Luisada 1991		58	0.38	42	0.00	70	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03
Lushtak 2004		31	0.44	18	0.01	22	0.06	25	0.28	67	0.04	30	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.39	13	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.13	66	0.04	45	0.07
Magaloff 1978		66	0.36	34	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	83	0.03	76	0.03
Magin 1975		5	0.54	15	0.01	5	0.33	4	0.63	41	0.20	3	0.35
Michalowski 1933		69	0.36	26	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.14	46	0.09	28	0.11
Milkina 1970		21	0.47	55	0.00	21	0.06	17	0.37	65	0.05	18	0.14
Mohovich 1999		37	0.43	48	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.24	72	0.04	36	0.10
Moravec 1969		81	0.29	49	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.03
Morozova 2008		19	0.48	51	0.00	9	0.10	12	0.41	51	0.06	14	0.16
Neighaus 1950		33	0.43	27	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.15	52	0.05	41	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.30	83	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.64	1	0.57	1	0.57	1	0.77	11	0.56	1	0.66
Osinska 1989		39	0.42	60	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	82	0.03	56	0.04
Pachmann 1927		54	0.38	70	0.00	65	0.05	67	0.05	48	0.07	49	0.06
Paderewski 1930		87	0.25	80	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.40	46	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	66	0.04	55	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		36	0.43	17	0.01	16	0.08	35	0.19	33	0.29	7	0.23
Poblocka 1999		57	0.38	91	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	79	0.03	57	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.37	56	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	75	0.04	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		45	0.40	52	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.17	57	0.05	38	0.09
Rangell 2001		29	0.44	9	0.02	31	0.06	40	0.16	44	0.18	13	0.17
Richter 1976		47	0.40	16	0.01	37	0.08	31	0.21	42	0.20	9	0.20
Rosen 1989		7	0.53	4	0.04	8	0.25	6	0.53	57	0.05	16	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.29	73	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	63	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.27	84	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.29	53	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	64	0.05	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.30	10	0.02	79	0.04	74	0.04	56	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.29	81	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.05	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		78	0.31	30	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		42	0.42	61	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.04	59	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		50	0.40	38	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	88	0.02	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		38	0.42	71	0.00	56	0.06	49	0.06	80	0.04	52	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		44	0.41	35	0.00	38	0.05	32	0.21	61	0.04	40	0.09
Shebanova 2002		4	0.54	3	0.04	4	0.22	3	0.65	61	0.05	12	0.18
Smith 1975		41	0.42	36	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	85	0.03	58	0.04
Sokolov 2002		6	0.54	5	0.03	7	0.20	7	0.49	35	0.21	4	0.32
Sztompka 1959		14	0.49	66	0.00	14	0.10	11	0.43	46	0.08	11	0.19
Tomsic 1995		52	0.39	23	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.06	51	0.05
Uninsky 1932		55	0.38	21	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.04	65	0.04
Uninsky 1971		49	0.40	50	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	78	0.04	46	0.07
Wasowski 1980		56	0.38	31	0.00	64	0.05	63	0.05	60	0.05	50	0.05
Zak 1937		20	0.48	77	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.27	65	0.05	23	0.12
Zak 1951		18	0.48	78	0.00	27	0.08	18	0.32	60	0.05	19	0.13
Average		3	0.58	8	0.03	3	0.19	2	0.69	88	0.02	24	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.12	54	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	62	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.05	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	37	0.13	66	0.04
Random 3		89	0.05	63	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	3	0.56	32	0.11

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).