Ezaki 2006

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		18	0.66	53	0.00	21	0.09	24	0.39	38	0.21	35	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.71	50	0.00	12	0.14	9	0.64	7	0.59	7	0.61
Ashkenazy 1981		34	0.62	58	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	35	0.22	46	0.17
Bacha 2000		40	0.60	46	0.00	39	0.07	36	0.22	4	0.58	28	0.36
Badura 1965		48	0.58	28	0.00	52	0.04	70	0.04	37	0.27	62	0.10
Barbosa 1983		15	0.67	35	0.00	9	0.12	17	0.55	4	0.65	10	0.60
Biret 1990		24	0.65	10	0.01	20	0.14	19	0.50	19	0.41	20	0.45
Blet 2003		61	0.54	71	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	45	0.09	74	0.06
Block 1995		35	0.61	8	0.02	28	0.07	28	0.34	7	0.57	21	0.44
Blumental 1952		14	0.67	4	0.03	15	0.12	11	0.61	5	0.55	11	0.58
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.57	81	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.06	78	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.61	9	0.01	42	0.06	42	0.14	14	0.60	34	0.29
Bunin 1987		83	0.43	84	0.00	81	0.04	75	0.04	37	0.21	64	0.09
Bunin 1987b		84	0.43	63	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	35	0.26	63	0.09
Chiu 1999		26	0.64	20	0.01	30	0.07	34	0.28	5	0.52	25	0.38
Cohen 1997		82	0.43	68	0.00	87	0.04	66	0.04	43	0.11	72	0.07
Cortot 1951		67	0.50	59	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	38	0.22	65	0.09
Csalog 1996		71	0.48	76	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	23	0.36	51	0.13
Czerny 1949		17	0.66	19	0.01	11	0.13	14	0.59	15	0.54	13	0.56
Czerny 1990		3	0.72	6	0.02	4	0.22	4	0.72	10	0.64	3	0.68
Duchoud 2007		87	0.39	85	0.00	86	0.04	78	0.04	53	0.05	81	0.04
Ezaki 2006		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Falvay 1989		29	0.63	18	0.01	40	0.07	40	0.18	13	0.50	32	0.30
Farrell 1958		36	0.61	34	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.28	24	0.43	31	0.35
Ferenczy 1958		60	0.54	65	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	41	0.17	67	0.08
Fliere 1977		9	0.70	14	0.01	13	0.13	10	0.61	33	0.22	26	0.37
Fou 1978		13	0.67	29	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.40	25	0.35	27	0.37
Francois 1956		76	0.45	51	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	46	0.06	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		55	0.56	82	0.00	66	0.06	54	0.06	39	0.20	60	0.11
Friedman 1923b		54	0.56	69	0.00	64	0.07	48	0.07	38	0.24	52	0.13
Friedman 1930		56	0.56	86	0.00	65	0.05	58	0.05	34	0.30	56	0.12
Garcia 2007		70	0.49	77	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.04	88	0.03
Garcia 2007b		69	0.49	32	0.00	69	0.04	76	0.04	82	0.03	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		12	0.67	27	0.00	14	0.14	13	0.59	35	0.35	19	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.59	61	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	26	0.33	53	0.13
Groot 1988		64	0.53	73	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	39	0.12	73	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.76	5	0.03	2	0.27	2	0.76	6	0.70	1	0.73
Hatto 1993		25	0.65	36	0.00	35	0.11	31	0.31	34	0.23	36	0.27
Hatto 1997		20	0.66	78	0.00	33	0.07	30	0.32	40	0.16	39	0.23
Horowitz 1949		73	0.47	54	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.06	85	0.03
Indjic 1988		23	0.65	40	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.31	40	0.19	38	0.24
Kapell 1951		28	0.63	37	0.00	8	0.12	8	0.64	11	0.47	14	0.55
Kissin 1993		11	0.68	13	0.01	18	0.18	18	0.54	31	0.40	18	0.46
Kushner 1989		31	0.63	43	0.00	37	0.08	37	0.21	44	0.13	44	0.17
Luisada 1991		10	0.69	44	0.00	19	0.15	20	0.48	16	0.45	17	0.46
Lushtak 2004		38	0.60	60	0.00	58	0.06	55	0.06	47	0.08	71	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.59	12	0.01	10	0.12	15	0.56	4	0.65	9	0.60
Magaloff 1978		47	0.59	45	0.00	60	0.08	46	0.08	24	0.31	47	0.16
Magin 1975		19	0.66	41	0.00	17	0.14	16	0.55	24	0.43	16	0.49
Michalowski 1933		85	0.42	87	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.06	87	0.03
Milkina 1970		5	0.71	3	0.03	3	0.27	3	0.74	6	0.67	2	0.70
Mohovich 1999		16	0.67	11	0.01	16	0.13	12	0.61	9	0.66	6	0.63
Moravec 1969		46	0.59	38	0.00	22	0.08	25	0.38	5	0.67	15	0.50
Morozova 2008		32	0.62	56	0.00	36	0.08	39	0.19	36	0.25	41	0.22
Neighaus 1950		72	0.48	88	0.00	83	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.05	82	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.53	74	0.00	61	0.06	53	0.06	36	0.20	57	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		58	0.55	15	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.13	72	0.04	69	0.07
Osinska 1989		7	0.71	7	0.02	7	0.13	5	0.71	26	0.50	8	0.60
Pachmann 1927		74	0.46	23	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	24	0.38	58	0.11
Paderewski 1930		88	0.32	89	0.00	88	0.04	77	0.04	75	0.03	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.50	62	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.04	84	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.42	70	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.05	79	0.04
Poblocka 1999		33	0.62	26	0.00	24	0.07	22	0.41	37	0.31	29	0.36
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.52	33	0.00	48	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.04	80	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		21	0.65	39	0.00	23	0.08	21	0.46	15	0.41	22	0.43
Rangell 2001		78	0.45	22	0.00	63	0.07	47	0.07	16	0.46	43	0.18
Richter 1976		53	0.57	31	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	34	0.37	48	0.15
Rosen 1989		27	0.64	25	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.32	29	0.29	33	0.30
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.45	66	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	32	0.27	61	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.46	75	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	13	0.55	49	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.43	55	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	22	0.41	59	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.45	79	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	24	0.40	54	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.44	64	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	16	0.53	50	0.15
Rossi 2007		51	0.58	24	0.00	59	0.06	49	0.06	7	0.55	42	0.18
Rubinstein 1939		49	0.58	52	0.00	46	0.04	62	0.04	19	0.39	55	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.54	57	0.00	38	0.07	41	0.17	33	0.30	40	0.23
Rubinstein 1966		22	0.65	42	0.00	26	0.08	26	0.38	26	0.42	24	0.40
Schilhawsky 1960		42	0.59	83	0.00	56	0.06	52	0.06	43	0.10	66	0.08
Shebanova 2002		39	0.60	49	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	78	0.04	70	0.07
Smith 1975		30	0.63	17	0.01	41	0.07	38	0.20	25	0.31	37	0.25
Sokolov 2002		59	0.55	21	0.00	27	0.07	27	0.38	11	0.47	23	0.42
Sztompka 1959		43	0.59	90	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	59	0.05	76	0.05
Tomsic 1995		65	0.53	48	0.00	62	0.06	51	0.06	19	0.48	45	0.17
Uninsky 1932		45	0.59	30	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.30	26	0.43	30	0.36
Uninsky 1971		57	0.55	47	0.00	47	0.04	64	0.04	54	0.06	77	0.05
Wasowski 1980		50	0.58	72	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	51	0.07	75	0.05
Zak 1937		6	0.71	16	0.01	6	0.14	7	0.64	8	0.62	4	0.63
Zak 1951		8	0.71	2	0.04	5	0.14	6	0.66	7	0.61	5	0.63
Average		1	0.81	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.86	28	0.36	12	0.56
Random 1		90	-0.08	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.01	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	22	0.30	68	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.08	67	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	46	0.05	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).