Lushtak 2004

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		51	0.53	73	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.60	44	0.00	35	0.06	29	0.31	32	0.35	25	0.33
Ashkenazy 1981		48	0.53	51	0.00	47	0.05	63	0.05	45	0.11	61	0.07
Bacha 2000		67	0.47	77	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	41	0.12	63	0.06
Badura 1965		53	0.52	50	0.00	63	0.05	53	0.05	48	0.08	65	0.06
Barbosa 1983		18	0.62	13	0.01	25	0.09	24	0.41	13	0.55	11	0.47
Biret 1990		22	0.60	24	0.00	16	0.09	12	0.53	18	0.43	10	0.48
Blet 2003		52	0.53	79	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	19	0.35	46	0.13
Block 1995		60	0.51	74	0.00	58	0.07	48	0.07	40	0.13	53	0.10
Blumental 1952		32	0.58	87	0.00	46	0.05	58	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		45	0.54	42	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.22	60	0.05	54	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.55	16	0.01	30	0.06	41	0.14	19	0.48	33	0.26
Bunin 1987		70	0.45	78	0.00	64	0.06	52	0.06	32	0.32	44	0.14
Bunin 1987b		72	0.45	75	0.00	60	0.05	64	0.05	30	0.35	45	0.13
Chiu 1999		21	0.60	52	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	26	0.26	49	0.11
Cohen 1997		58	0.52	38	0.00	68	0.05	62	0.05	7	0.47	42	0.15
Cortot 1951		71	0.45	15	0.01	62	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.13	62	0.07
Csalog 1996		65	0.48	26	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	20	0.38	39	0.22
Czerny 1949		37	0.56	17	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.10	48	0.07	57	0.08
Czerny 1990		12	0.63	10	0.02	24	0.08	25	0.38	42	0.16	37	0.25
Duchoud 2007		75	0.44	58	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	25	0.28	50	0.11
Ezaki 2006		19	0.60	64	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	55	0.06	59	0.07
Falvay 1989		17	0.62	9	0.02	9	0.11	23	0.42	7	0.56	8	0.48
Farrell 1958		11	0.64	20	0.01	13	0.11	10	0.55	12	0.53	6	0.54
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.50	48	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	44	0.15	56	0.08
Fliere 1977		5	0.66	18	0.01	7	0.20	6	0.65	31	0.25	17	0.40
Fou 1978		31	0.58	82	0.00	23	0.08	27	0.34	37	0.19	36	0.25
Francois 1956		46	0.54	67	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	17	0.50	41	0.16
Friedman 1923		57	0.52	83	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	67	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1923b		55	0.52	69	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.05	80	0.04
Friedman 1930		59	0.51	65	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	52	0.06	78	0.04
Garcia 2007		63	0.50	76	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.06	70	0.05
Garcia 2007b		49	0.53	46	0.00	32	0.06	33	0.23	28	0.35	32	0.28
Gierzod 1998		15	0.62	23	0.00	20	0.09	11	0.54	45	0.15	31	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.50	36	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	46	0.05	73	0.05
Groot 1988		36	0.56	14	0.01	8	0.11	19	0.45	9	0.47	13	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.66	4	0.04	12	0.12	14	0.52	34	0.31	18	0.40
Hatto 1993		9	0.65	88	0.00	22	0.15	17	0.50	28	0.29	21	0.38
Hatto 1997		8	0.65	33	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.51	28	0.27	22	0.37
Horowitz 1949		82	0.40	59	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	57	0.06	76	0.04
Indjic 1988		7	0.65	34	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.51	26	0.30	20	0.39
Kapell 1951		34	0.57	27	0.00	14	0.08	18	0.49	28	0.27	23	0.36
Kissin 1993		23	0.60	84	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.36	42	0.24	29	0.29
Kushner 1989		3	0.67	8	0.02	4	0.33	2	0.76	6	0.65	1	0.70
Luisada 1991		24	0.59	80	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	69	0.04	66	0.05
Lushtak 2004		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Malcuzynski 1961		80	0.41	61	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03
Magaloff 1978		39	0.55	35	0.00	31	0.08	38	0.21	22	0.33	34	0.26
Magin 1975		54	0.52	31	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	53	0.05	68	0.05
Michalowski 1933		87	0.32	70	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.04
Milkina 1970		42	0.55	30	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.24	54	0.06	47	0.12
Mohovich 1999		27	0.59	29	0.00	18	0.11	20	0.44	23	0.46	14	0.45
Moravec 1969		74	0.44	89	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	50	0.05	74	0.04
Morozova 2008		26	0.59	32	0.00	29	0.09	28	0.32	27	0.35	26	0.33
Neighaus 1950		28	0.58	39	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.29	22	0.39	24	0.34
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.43	68	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.59	22	0.00	19	0.13	8	0.58	18	0.46	7	0.52
Osinska 1989		10	0.65	6	0.03	6	0.18	5	0.66	25	0.50	5	0.57
Pachmann 1927		69	0.46	47	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	14	0.47	48	0.12
Paderewski 1930		81	0.40	57	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.55	53	0.00	38	0.05	36	0.22	22	0.41	28	0.30
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.43	54	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	16	0.45	38	0.23
Poblocka 1999		29	0.58	62	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.44	34	0.34	19	0.39
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.56	19	0.01	17	0.09	21	0.44	16	0.40	16	0.42
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.53	49	0.00	56	0.08	46	0.08	53	0.05	64	0.06
Rangell 2001		79	0.41	12	0.01	40	0.08	35	0.22	21	0.39	30	0.29
Richter 1976		66	0.47	11	0.02	61	0.05	65	0.05	44	0.16	55	0.09
Rosen 1989		50	0.53	45	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.40	66	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	37	0.23	58	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.33	43	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	42	0.16	60	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.32	86	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	49	0.06	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		84	0.34	90	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	46	0.06	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.29	71	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	70	0.04	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		77	0.43	72	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	58	0.05	75	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		30	0.58	37	0.00	27	0.07	30	0.29	25	0.36	27	0.32
Rubinstein 1952		16	0.62	2	0.09	3	0.26	7	0.62	7	0.63	3	0.62
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.71	7	0.02	2	0.21	3	0.75	6	0.65	2	0.70
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.54	28	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.19	37	0.20	40	0.19
Shebanova 2002		6	0.65	5	0.03	5	0.19	4	0.70	11	0.54	4	0.61
Smith 1975		44	0.54	55	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	37	0.21	51	0.10
Sokolov 2002		64	0.49	56	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	57	0.05	67	0.05
Sztompka 1959		33	0.57	40	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.23	69	0.04	52	0.10
Tomsic 1995		56	0.52	81	0.00	34	0.07	42	0.13	14	0.54	35	0.26
Uninsky 1932		73	0.44	63	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Uninsky 1971		68	0.46	60	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	52	0.06	69	0.05
Wasowski 1980		35	0.57	21	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.18	45	0.11	43	0.14
Zak 1937		14	0.63	3	0.05	10	0.11	13	0.52	27	0.38	15	0.44
Zak 1951		13	0.63	25	0.00	11	0.20	9	0.57	25	0.41	9	0.48
Average		1	0.75	1	0.54	1	0.53	1	0.85	38	0.25	12	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.17	41	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.04	85	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.11	91	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	70	0.04	88	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).