Osinska 1989

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		38	0.62	81	0.00	45	0.07	42	0.14	34	0.27	51	0.19
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.72	4	0.02	9	0.17	6	0.66	2	0.71	6	0.68
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.53	89	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	59	0.05	87	0.04
Bacha 2000		72	0.50	82	0.00	74	0.06	57	0.06	31	0.22	64	0.11
Badura 1965		65	0.54	67	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	39	0.24	70	0.10
Barbosa 1983		58	0.55	56	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.14	12	0.57	40	0.28
Biret 1990		17	0.68	8	0.01	8	0.23	13	0.60	3	0.65	13	0.62
Blet 2003		67	0.53	73	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	22	0.32	68	0.11
Block 1995		49	0.58	57	0.00	50	0.06	60	0.06	11	0.52	54	0.18
Blumental 1952		46	0.58	21	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.26	22	0.29	43	0.27
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.66	34	0.00	30	0.12	29	0.43	22	0.48	30	0.45
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.55	29	0.00	69	0.04	76	0.04	30	0.36	62	0.12
Bunin 1987		86	0.42	62	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	46	0.06	88	0.04
Bunin 1987b		87	0.42	33	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	53	0.05	82	0.04
Chiu 1999		63	0.54	47	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	44	0.11	75	0.07
Cohen 1997		88	0.40	74	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	31	0.22	74	0.08
Cortot 1951		70	0.51	38	0.00	73	0.06	59	0.06	16	0.50	56	0.17
Csalog 1996		62	0.54	68	0.00	56	0.07	53	0.07	9	0.51	49	0.19
Czerny 1949		16	0.69	50	0.00	27	0.16	27	0.49	10	0.58	25	0.53
Czerny 1990		4	0.74	3	0.03	6	0.19	7	0.65	6	0.73	5	0.69
Duchoud 2007		85	0.42	75	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	52	0.05	85	0.04
Ezaki 2006		9	0.71	10	0.01	16	0.09	26	0.50	5	0.71	16	0.60
Falvay 1989		23	0.67	22	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.33	5	0.60	31	0.44
Farrell 1958		34	0.62	14	0.01	10	0.16	15	0.58	3	0.68	9	0.63
Ferenczy 1958		40	0.61	27	0.00	59	0.08	48	0.08	9	0.55	46	0.21
Fliere 1977		5	0.74	35	0.00	4	0.16	4	0.73	3	0.60	7	0.66
Fou 1978		19	0.68	42	0.00	26	0.19	24	0.50	6	0.60	24	0.55
Francois 1956		53	0.58	39	0.00	60	0.09	46	0.09	15	0.52	45	0.22
Friedman 1923		64	0.54	76	0.00	64	0.05	64	0.05	33	0.33	61	0.13
Friedman 1923b		59	0.55	77	0.00	63	0.05	62	0.05	31	0.39	58	0.14
Friedman 1930		51	0.58	58	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	28	0.42	60	0.13
Garcia 2007		52	0.58	24	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.14	7	0.58	41	0.28
Garcia 2007b		33	0.63	5	0.02	14	0.10	20	0.51	4	0.61	23	0.56
Gierzod 1998		2	0.78	2	0.14	2	0.31	2	0.80	4	0.75	1	0.77
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.66	15	0.01	32	0.07	37	0.23	12	0.56	34	0.36
Groot 1988		56	0.56	51	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.24	10	0.47	36	0.34
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.74	6	0.02	7	0.20	5	0.71	2	0.76	4	0.73
Hatto 1993		21	0.67	31	0.00	21	0.14	11	0.61	5	0.58	20	0.59
Hatto 1997		15	0.69	83	0.00	20	0.12	10	0.63	5	0.59	15	0.61
Horowitz 1949		76	0.48	66	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	49	0.08	81	0.05
Indjic 1988		14	0.69	12	0.01	18	0.11	9	0.64	5	0.59	14	0.61
Kapell 1951		27	0.66	69	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.51	6	0.49	28	0.50
Kissin 1993		22	0.67	52	0.00	28	0.17	28	0.47	19	0.55	27	0.51
Kushner 1989		8	0.71	7	0.01	5	0.14	8	0.64	3	0.69	8	0.66
Luisada 1991		36	0.62	84	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.16	18	0.40	44	0.25
Lushtak 2004		29	0.65	9	0.01	22	0.10	25	0.50	5	0.66	22	0.57
Malcuzynski 1961		54	0.58	26	0.00	51	0.06	58	0.06	15	0.46	55	0.17
Magaloff 1978		41	0.60	63	0.00	49	0.07	50	0.07	10	0.46	53	0.18
Magin 1975		37	0.62	78	0.00	35	0.06	39	0.21	29	0.34	42	0.27
Michalowski 1933		82	0.45	59	0.00	82	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.05	84	0.04
Milkina 1970		3	0.75	30	0.00	3	0.30	3	0.76	2	0.75	3	0.75
Mohovich 1999		28	0.65	48	0.00	24	0.13	21	0.51	4	0.68	19	0.59
Moravec 1969		66	0.54	43	0.00	67	0.03	83	0.03	23	0.38	65	0.11
Morozova 2008		48	0.58	32	0.00	46	0.08	47	0.08	14	0.45	50	0.19
Neighaus 1950		43	0.60	40	0.00	57	0.07	55	0.07	29	0.29	59	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.50	28	0.00	68	0.03	79	0.03	45	0.09	80	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		35	0.62	25	0.00	31	0.10	31	0.39	19	0.46	32	0.42
Osinska 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Pachmann 1927		75	0.48	36	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	43	0.15	73	0.08
Paderewski 1930		81	0.45	90	0.00	75	0.05	65	0.05	33	0.25	67	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.63	79	0.00	40	0.06	34	0.25	3	0.62	33	0.39
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.55	60	0.00	39	0.05	45	0.13	4	0.60	39	0.28
Poblocka 1999		31	0.63	23	0.00	29	0.11	30	0.42	10	0.55	29	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.55	70	0.00	55	0.07	49	0.07	39	0.17	66	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		45	0.59	46	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	38	0.19	69	0.10
Rangell 2001		71	0.51	53	0.00	58	0.07	51	0.07	8	0.54	52	0.19
Richter 1976		77	0.48	71	0.00	79	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.06	83	0.04
Rosen 1989		10	0.70	44	0.00	17	0.11	17	0.57	6	0.63	18	0.60
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.45	45	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.45	19	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	33	0.25	71	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.44	85	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	39	0.18	76	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.45	64	0.00	84	0.04	75	0.04	42	0.14	77	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.43	86	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	38	0.21	78	0.06
Rossi 2007		39	0.61	11	0.01	42	0.05	41	0.14	1	0.67	38	0.31
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.59	87	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	7	0.50	47	0.19
Rubinstein 1952		55	0.57	54	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.23	13	0.55	35	0.36
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.69	13	0.01	12	0.11	14	0.59	4	0.68	11	0.63
Schilhawsky 1960		42	0.60	61	0.00	47	0.05	63	0.05	33	0.30	63	0.12
Shebanova 2002		20	0.67	16	0.01	11	0.11	12	0.61	12	0.54	21	0.57
Smith 1975		30	0.64	17	0.00	36	0.07	38	0.22	10	0.47	37	0.32
Sokolov 2002		74	0.49	91	0.00	72	0.05	66	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.05
Sztompka 1959		26	0.66	55	0.00	25	0.14	23	0.51	21	0.52	26	0.51
Tomsic 1995		50	0.58	37	0.00	53	0.06	56	0.06	8	0.60	48	0.19
Uninsky 1932		69	0.52	65	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	43	0.19	72	0.09
Uninsky 1971		47	0.58	49	0.00	54	0.07	54	0.07	31	0.32	57	0.15
Wasowski 1980		12	0.69	20	0.00	19	0.09	19	0.53	2	0.68	17	0.60
Zak 1937		11	0.70	18	0.00	13	0.11	18	0.57	3	0.70	10	0.63
Zak 1951		18	0.68	41	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.57	5	0.67	12	0.62
Average		1	0.83	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.88	5	0.65	2	0.76
Random 1		89	-0.07	88	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	32	0.17	86	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.08	72	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.11	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	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).