Ohlsson 1999

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	0.67	11	0.01	4	0.21	5	0.62	9	0.58	7	0.60
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.63	31	0.00	22	0.09	34	0.32	25	0.43	32	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.66	19	0.01	12	0.10	10	0.56	5	0.59	10	0.57
Bacha 2000		45	0.54	80	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	9	0.43	45	0.15
Badura 1965		32	0.58	33	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.33	11	0.55	20	0.43
Barbosa 1983		70	0.46	65	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	56	0.05	79	0.04
Biret 1990		34	0.57	51	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.13	37	0.20	43	0.16
Blet 2003		69	0.46	69	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	43	0.11	68	0.07
Block 1995		75	0.44	82	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	35	0.19	60	0.10
Blumental 1952		74	0.44	83	0.00	74	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.04	83	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		15	0.63	53	0.00	16	0.10	25	0.41	26	0.45	21	0.43
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.46	77	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.05	72	0.04
Bunin 1987		72	0.45	46	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	10	0.49	42	0.16
Bunin 1987b		73	0.45	70	0.00	48	0.04	69	0.04	9	0.50	48	0.14
Chiu 1999		49	0.53	40	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	21	0.31	56	0.11
Cohen 1997		82	0.40	29	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	33	0.20	63	0.08
Cortot 1951		78	0.41	78	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	51	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		86	0.35	84	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.05	81	0.04
Czerny 1949		24	0.61	61	0.00	32	0.10	26	0.39	33	0.39	30	0.39
Czerny 1990		27	0.60	14	0.01	38	0.06	40	0.14	50	0.07	61	0.10
Duchoud 2007		11	0.64	12	0.01	10	0.13	11	0.56	1	0.77	2	0.66
Ezaki 2006		40	0.55	34	0.00	49	0.04	72	0.04	44	0.13	66	0.07
Falvay 1989		68	0.46	38	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.05	74	0.04
Farrell 1958		30	0.58	23	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.20	40	0.23	38	0.21
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.40	90	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.03
Fliere 1977		6	0.68	37	0.00	5	0.20	7	0.62	14	0.49	11	0.55
Fou 1978		39	0.56	76	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.05
Francois 1956		51	0.52	50	0.00	62	0.06	46	0.06	25	0.44	44	0.16
Friedman 1923		36	0.56	43	0.00	53	0.06	47	0.06	34	0.32	50	0.14
Friedman 1923b		38	0.56	26	0.00	52	0.04	65	0.04	36	0.33	58	0.11
Friedman 1930		43	0.55	28	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	33	0.31	54	0.12
Garcia 2007		48	0.53	74	0.00	50	0.04	66	0.04	11	0.52	49	0.14
Garcia 2007b		41	0.55	86	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.34	12	0.52	25	0.42
Gierzod 1998		3	0.71	3	0.08	3	0.37	3	0.71	17	0.59	3	0.65
Gornostaeva 1994		46	0.54	42	0.00	64	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.10	64	0.08
Groot 1988		66	0.47	58	0.00	36	0.06	38	0.19	41	0.12	47	0.15
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.61	56	0.00	23	0.10	20	0.45	30	0.41	22	0.43
Hatto 1993		14	0.63	75	0.00	20	0.11	22	0.44	23	0.36	28	0.40
Hatto 1997		16	0.63	59	0.00	21	0.08	24	0.42	22	0.36	29	0.39
Horowitz 1949		62	0.47	79	0.00	65	0.04	78	0.04	34	0.34	52	0.12
Indjic 1988		12	0.64	66	0.00	19	0.09	17	0.46	23	0.37	27	0.41
Kapell 1951		54	0.52	35	0.00	37	0.06	43	0.13	47	0.07	59	0.10
Kissin 1993		28	0.60	36	0.00	29	0.09	29	0.36	36	0.36	33	0.36
Kushner 1989		5	0.69	7	0.02	9	0.15	4	0.66	18	0.57	5	0.61
Luisada 1991		31	0.58	25	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.35	29	0.31	34	0.33
Lushtak 2004		29	0.59	17	0.01	13	0.09	18	0.46	8	0.58	13	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.47	67	0.00	75	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.04	78	0.04
Magaloff 1978		52	0.52	5	0.02	45	0.06	44	0.13	60	0.04	67	0.07
Magin 1975		21	0.62	32	0.00	6	0.19	9	0.57	16	0.49	12	0.53
Michalowski 1933		57	0.51	54	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	11	0.48	41	0.17
Milkina 1970		26	0.60	39	0.00	26	0.09	23	0.43	31	0.42	24	0.42
Mohovich 1999		35	0.56	47	0.00	34	0.08	32	0.33	24	0.44	31	0.38
Moravec 1969		88	0.31	57	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	84	0.03	87	0.03
Morozova 2008		25	0.61	15	0.01	18	0.08	14	0.52	9	0.51	15	0.51
Neighaus 1950		7	0.67	21	0.00	11	0.12	12	0.56	6	0.60	8	0.58
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.48	52	0.00	68	0.05	60	0.05	62	0.04	76	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Osinska 1989		20	0.62	16	0.01	25	0.10	19	0.46	31	0.39	23	0.42
Pachmann 1927		76	0.43	81	0.00	81	0.05	55	0.05	31	0.29	53	0.12
Paderewski 1930		77	0.42	85	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	52	0.04	88	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.52	68	0.00	46	0.04	68	0.04	20	0.44	51	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		58	0.49	27	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.13	10	0.50	35	0.25
Poblocka 1999		42	0.55	41	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.39	25	0.44	26	0.41
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.47	72	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.54	44	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.27	37	0.21	37	0.24
Rangell 2001		61	0.48	45	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	25	0.38	55	0.12
Richter 1976		56	0.51	49	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	22	0.50	40	0.17
Rosen 1989		19	0.63	30	0.00	24	0.09	15	0.49	13	0.50	16	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.41	62	0.00	82	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.38	63	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	58	0.05	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.36	91	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	56	0.05	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		84	0.38	55	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.04	86	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.35	87	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	71	0.04	90	0.03
Rossi 2007		80	0.40	9	0.01	83	0.04	76	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.52	48	0.00	66	0.04	80	0.04	59	0.04	75	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.46	18	0.01	44	0.05	45	0.11	51	0.06	65	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.61	20	0.01	39	0.07	36	0.21	34	0.29	36	0.25
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.58	10	0.01	30	0.09	28	0.38	22	0.48	19	0.43
Shebanova 2002		2	0.72	2	0.11	2	0.35	2	0.75	3	0.67	1	0.71
Smith 1975		47	0.53	64	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	48	0.07	70	0.06
Sokolov 2002		9	0.67	4	0.03	7	0.14	6	0.62	3	0.65	4	0.63
Sztompka 1959		4	0.69	6	0.02	8	0.18	8	0.61	16	0.54	9	0.57
Tomsic 1995		59	0.49	13	0.01	60	0.05	57	0.05	22	0.46	46	0.15
Uninsky 1932		65	0.47	73	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	40	0.25	57	0.11
Uninsky 1971		50	0.53	8	0.01	17	0.09	21	0.45	22	0.49	18	0.47
Wasowski 1980		37	0.56	24	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.14	31	0.30	39	0.20
Zak 1937		18	0.63	22	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.48	16	0.48	17	0.48
Zak 1951		13	0.63	71	0.00	14	0.09	13	0.52	14	0.51	14	0.51
Average		1	0.76	1	0.54	1	0.53	1	0.84	24	0.44	6	0.61
Random 1		91	-0.14	60	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	88	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	19	0.33	62	0.08
Random 3		90	-0.05	89	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	22	0.25	69	0.07

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).