Neighaus 1950

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		8	0.66	54	0.00	15	0.19	14	0.54	21	0.45	14	0.49
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.59	83	0.00	36	0.09	35	0.19	45	0.10	39	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		14	0.61	11	0.02	13	0.16	7	0.60	4	0.61	4	0.60
Bacha 2000		56	0.50	66	0.00	66	0.06	49	0.06	49	0.05	60	0.05
Badura 1965		37	0.54	36	0.00	50	0.05	63	0.05	36	0.30	44	0.12
Barbosa 1983		77	0.40	64	0.00	75	0.05	56	0.05	78	0.04	74	0.04
Biret 1990		51	0.52	33	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.04	79	0.04
Blet 2003		53	0.51	25	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	15	0.40	40	0.14
Block 1995		58	0.50	21	0.01	38	0.05	38	0.16	31	0.22	32	0.19
Blumental 1952		74	0.44	55	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.68	8	0.03	4	0.19	5	0.62	12	0.58	3	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		72	0.45	61	0.00	76	0.04	80	0.04	71	0.05	69	0.04
Bunin 1987		65	0.48	37	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	18	0.44	35	0.15
Bunin 1987b		71	0.46	24	0.00	58	0.05	50	0.05	21	0.40	37	0.14
Chiu 1999		70	0.47	62	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	59	0.05	61	0.05
Cohen 1997		84	0.32	67	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		60	0.49	52	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	28	0.39	41	0.14
Csalog 1996		87	0.31	87	0.00	80	0.04	77	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Czerny 1949		6	0.68	5	0.04	11	0.16	12	0.56	16	0.54	10	0.55
Czerny 1990		16	0.60	43	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.24	55	0.06	45	0.12
Duchoud 2007		75	0.43	42	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	42	0.15	52	0.09
Ezaki 2006		67	0.48	84	0.00	74	0.05	59	0.05	79	0.04	68	0.04
Falvay 1989		79	0.39	69	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03
Farrell 1958		32	0.56	4	0.05	22	0.07	32	0.25	51	0.07	42	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		63	0.48	39	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	38	0.26	51	0.10
Fliere 1977		11	0.64	71	0.00	16	0.17	17	0.51	45	0.11	28	0.24
Fou 1978		50	0.52	88	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.18	46	0.06	49	0.10
Francois 1956		20	0.60	10	0.02	27	0.06	24	0.35	3	0.64	17	0.47
Friedman 1923		10	0.64	29	0.00	12	0.18	15	0.54	8	0.58	8	0.56
Friedman 1923b		9	0.65	6	0.04	8	0.15	13	0.55	7	0.62	6	0.58
Friedman 1930		15	0.61	70	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.37	18	0.51	19	0.43
Garcia 2007		66	0.48	51	0.00	73	0.06	47	0.06	49	0.06	59	0.06
Garcia 2007b		46	0.53	53	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.14	64	0.04	58	0.07
Gierzod 1998		5	0.68	3	0.07	5	0.24	4	0.69	25	0.46	7	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.57	35	0.00	46	0.04	71	0.04	43	0.13	57	0.07
Groot 1988		59	0.50	30	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.12	59	0.05	54	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.61	49	0.00	20	0.17	20	0.44	43	0.15	26	0.26
Hatto 1993		23	0.59	7	0.04	6	0.16	8	0.59	16	0.41	15	0.49
Hatto 1997		21	0.59	59	0.00	9	0.18	11	0.57	18	0.39	16	0.47
Horowitz 1949		49	0.52	56	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.13	23	0.46	29	0.24
Indjic 1988		17	0.60	22	0.01	7	0.18	10	0.59	18	0.42	11	0.50
Kapell 1951		55	0.51	80	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.04
Kissin 1993		12	0.63	12	0.02	14	0.13	9	0.59	20	0.51	9	0.55
Kushner 1989		26	0.58	57	0.00	47	0.05	64	0.05	57	0.05	63	0.05
Luisada 1991		44	0.53	45	0.00	51	0.06	48	0.06	46	0.09	55	0.07
Lushtak 2004		25	0.58	46	0.00	24	0.07	22	0.39	31	0.29	23	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.50	47	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	53	0.05	56	0.07
Magaloff 1978		54	0.51	63	0.00	64	0.04	75	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Magin 1975		35	0.55	20	0.01	32	0.07	27	0.31	51	0.05	43	0.12
Michalowski 1933		45	0.53	28	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	16	0.46	31	0.19
Milkina 1970		48	0.53	65	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	68	0.05	64	0.05
Mohovich 1999		69	0.48	85	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	65	0.04	78	0.04
Moravec 1969		86	0.32	86	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Morozova 2008		42	0.54	27	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	50	0.06	67	0.05
Neighaus 1950		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.57	26	0.00	21	0.09	30	0.27	20	0.42	22	0.34
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.67	23	0.00	10	0.14	6	0.60	12	0.56	5	0.58
Osinska 1989		19	0.60	50	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.29	55	0.07	36	0.14
Pachmann 1927		64	0.48	68	0.00	78	0.04	69	0.04	33	0.25	50	0.10
Paderewski 1930		36	0.55	15	0.01	30	0.06	42	0.13	5	0.61	25	0.28
Perlemuter 1992		43	0.54	48	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	33	0.22	47	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.45	14	0.01	63	0.04	79	0.04	37	0.25	48	0.10
Poblocka 1999		29	0.57	34	0.00	18	0.14	19	0.47	28	0.42	18	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.48	41	0.00	70	0.07	46	0.07	70	0.04	62	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		39	0.54	16	0.01	42	0.05	39	0.15	63	0.04	53	0.08
Rangell 2001		68	0.48	18	0.01	61	0.04	76	0.04	29	0.35	46	0.12
Richter 1976		30	0.57	38	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.27	19	0.52	20	0.37
Rosen 1989		52	0.51	89	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.40	72	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	52	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.32	74	0.00	87	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.33	90	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.34	75	0.00	84	0.04	83	0.04	78	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.28	76	0.00	88	0.04	82	0.04	84	0.03	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		78	0.40	77	0.00	81	0.03	88	0.03	56	0.05	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.48	17	0.01	62	0.04	81	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		80	0.38	44	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.03	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		38	0.54	40	0.00	55	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.06	66	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.60	13	0.02	19	0.21	16	0.51	21	0.49	12	0.50
Shebanova 2002		3	0.71	9	0.02	3	0.31	3	0.71	9	0.57	2	0.64
Smith 1975		40	0.54	19	0.01	35	0.08	34	0.23	40	0.17	30	0.20
Sokolov 2002		33	0.56	31	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.30	25	0.31	24	0.30
Sztompka 1959		1	0.75	1	0.29	1	0.28	2	0.75	4	0.67	1	0.71
Tomsic 1995		81	0.37	32	0.00	79	0.05	62	0.05	74	0.05	65	0.05
Uninsky 1932		47	0.53	58	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.16	42	0.21	33	0.18
Uninsky 1971		24	0.59	73	0.00	17	0.20	18	0.49	20	0.50	13	0.49
Wasowski 1980		27	0.57	60	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.40	32	0.30	21	0.35
Zak 1937		34	0.55	78	0.00	26	0.06	25	0.35	51	0.07	34	0.16
Zak 1951		41	0.54	79	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.31	58	0.06	38	0.14
Average		2	0.74	2	0.22	2	0.38	1	0.77	49	0.08	27	0.25
Random 1		91	-0.10	91	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	50	0.04	83	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.09	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.08	82	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.04	84	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).