Farrell 1958

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		37	0.56	31	0.00	39	0.08	41	0.22	65	0.04	56	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		16	0.58	70	0.00	24	0.12	17	0.47	33	0.34	25	0.40
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.52	30	0.00	56	0.07	48	0.07	57	0.05	63	0.06
Bacha 2000		33	0.56	50	0.00	33	0.08	35	0.32	5	0.52	23	0.41
Badura 1965		72	0.43	64	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.04
Barbosa 1983		29	0.57	36	0.00	34	0.09	34	0.33	24	0.45	26	0.39
Biret 1990		8	0.62	58	0.00	10	0.13	9	0.57	15	0.46	14	0.51
Blet 2003		78	0.37	90	0.00	79	0.04	80	0.04	80	0.03	87	0.03
Block 1995		61	0.48	79	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	30	0.22	50	0.11
Blumental 1952		24	0.57	85	0.00	36	0.09	33	0.33	48	0.06	41	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		56	0.48	51	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	61	0.05	62	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.46	76	0.00	74	0.05	67	0.05	67	0.05	65	0.05
Bunin 1987		88	0.28	71	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	87	0.03	91	0.03
Bunin 1987b		87	0.29	74	0.00	88	0.04	78	0.04	88	0.02	83	0.03
Chiu 1999		40	0.55	80	0.00	55	0.07	50	0.07	48	0.06	59	0.06
Cohen 1997		66	0.47	65	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	24	0.29	51	0.11
Cortot 1951		45	0.53	16	0.00	51	0.06	60	0.06	9	0.59	36	0.19
Csalog 1996		84	0.34	86	0.00	66	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03
Czerny 1949		12	0.59	3	0.09	4	0.15	7	0.59	30	0.42	16	0.50
Czerny 1990		2	0.65	15	0.01	5	0.13	5	0.64	14	0.53	5	0.58
Duchoud 2007		70	0.45	63	0.00	65	0.06	54	0.06	29	0.25	48	0.12
Ezaki 2006		9	0.61	13	0.01	15	0.10	24	0.43	35	0.28	28	0.35
Falvay 1989		26	0.57	9	0.01	31	0.09	31	0.37	16	0.49	21	0.43
Farrell 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ferenczy 1958		80	0.36	72	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.03
Fliere 1977		36	0.56	43	0.00	28	0.10	23	0.43	62	0.05	38	0.15
Fou 1978		18	0.58	77	0.00	18	0.07	14	0.51	26	0.33	24	0.41
Francois 1956		43	0.54	14	0.01	19	0.08	25	0.42	6	0.61	15	0.51
Friedman 1923		60	0.48	35	0.00	72	0.05	64	0.05	55	0.05	74	0.05
Friedman 1923b		54	0.49	45	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.05	80	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.48	59	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04
Garcia 2007		22	0.57	5	0.02	17	0.08	18	0.46	6	0.59	12	0.52
Garcia 2007b		21	0.57	7	0.01	13	0.14	13	0.53	5	0.60	7	0.56
Gierzod 1998		41	0.55	21	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.37	49	0.06	40	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		59	0.48	73	0.00	62	0.06	61	0.06	76	0.03	81	0.04
Groot 1988		27	0.57	47	0.00	16	0.09	21	0.45	11	0.47	18	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.59	61	0.00	26	0.09	32	0.36	53	0.05	45	0.13
Hatto 1993		19	0.58	56	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.18	48	0.06	54	0.10
Hatto 1997		34	0.56	82	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	48	0.07	53	0.10
Horowitz 1949		86	0.32	81	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		30	0.57	69	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.19	49	0.06	49	0.11
Kapell 1951		52	0.50	32	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.41	44	0.12	33	0.22
Kissin 1993		23	0.57	24	0.00	25	0.10	20	0.45	41	0.28	29	0.35
Kushner 1989		6	0.64	6	0.02	3	0.17	4	0.64	14	0.58	2	0.61
Luisada 1991		55	0.48	39	0.00	69	0.05	68	0.05	73	0.03	75	0.04
Lushtak 2004		5	0.64	37	0.00	12	0.11	12	0.53	10	0.55	10	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.52	29	0.00	49	0.06	55	0.06	29	0.24	47	0.12
Magaloff 1978		14	0.58	19	0.00	20	0.08	28	0.40	6	0.52	17	0.46
Magin 1975		50	0.51	57	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	60	0.04	60	0.06
Michalowski 1933		85	0.34	87	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.03
Milkina 1970		11	0.60	66	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.58	26	0.45	13	0.51
Mohovich 1999		39	0.55	52	0.00	21	0.08	16	0.50	30	0.38	20	0.44
Moravec 1969		64	0.47	49	0.00	64	0.06	59	0.06	31	0.28	42	0.13
Morozova 2008		20	0.58	18	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.29	42	0.21	32	0.25
Neighaus 1950		31	0.56	25	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	32	0.25	44	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.47	38	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.58	40	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.23	37	0.20	35	0.21
Osinska 1989		7	0.62	2	0.22	2	0.37	3	0.68	15	0.58	1	0.63
Pachmann 1927		74	0.41	75	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	26	0.34	52	0.10
Paderewski 1930		71	0.44	44	0.00	61	0.06	56	0.06	20	0.45	37	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.50	78	0.00	54	0.06	62	0.06	43	0.13	55	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.48	8	0.01	23	0.10	22	0.44	2	0.68	8	0.55
Poblocka 1999		63	0.48	20	0.00	57	0.07	49	0.07	55	0.05	58	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		32	0.56	41	0.00	14	0.13	19	0.45	14	0.42	22	0.43
Rachmaninoff 1923		35	0.56	67	0.00	27	0.08	29	0.40	31	0.26	30	0.32
Rangell 2001		69	0.46	28	0.00	35	0.09	39	0.24	6	0.57	27	0.37
Richter 1976		75	0.41	26	0.00	75	0.04	73	0.04	50	0.06	66	0.05
Rosen 1989		48	0.51	62	0.00	50	0.06	58	0.06	48	0.06	61	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.38	48	0.00	82	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.37	33	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	47	0.07	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.35	91	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	45	0.10	72	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.35	55	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	47	0.06	73	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.35	88	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.07	71	0.05
Rossi 2007		28	0.57	4	0.02	22	0.08	15	0.50	4	0.57	11	0.53
Rubinstein 1939		10	0.61	23	0.00	9	0.15	11	0.54	5	0.57	9	0.55
Rubinstein 1952		25	0.57	12	0.01	7	0.15	10	0.56	10	0.56	6	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.65	10	0.01	6	0.14	6	0.62	12	0.57	4	0.59
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.46	60	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	54	0.05	69	0.05
Shebanova 2002		15	0.58	27	0.00	29	0.09	26	0.41	39	0.21	31	0.29
Smith 1975		49	0.51	83	0.00	42	0.08	44	0.17	31	0.25	34	0.21
Sokolov 2002		44	0.53	17	0.00	52	0.05	65	0.05	44	0.09	57	0.07
Sztompka 1959		4	0.64	11	0.01	8	0.15	2	0.70	22	0.52	3	0.60
Tomsic 1995		57	0.48	54	0.00	53	0.05	66	0.05	25	0.46	39	0.15
Uninsky 1932		73	0.41	42	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04
Uninsky 1971		76	0.40	46	0.00	63	0.06	63	0.06	80	0.04	67	0.05
Wasowski 1980		51	0.50	68	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	76	0.04	64	0.05
Zak 1937		42	0.54	22	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.25	58	0.06	46	0.12
Zak 1951		38	0.56	34	0.00	37	0.09	36	0.30	52	0.06	43	0.13
Average		1	0.72	1	0.47	1	0.47	1	0.83	39	0.23	19	0.44
Random 1		91	-0.12	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.12	90	0.03
Random 2		89	0.01	89	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	36	0.14	70	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.07	53	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	33	0.19	79	0.04

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).