Pierdomenico 2008

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		23	0.48	30	0.00	16	0.07	24	0.40	74	0.04	27	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		57	0.37	85	0.00	50	0.05	63	0.05	78	0.03	65	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.45	27	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.20	71	0.03	43	0.08
Bacha 2000		49	0.40	63	0.00	60	0.06	49	0.06	76	0.03	57	0.04
Badura 1965		81	0.28	88	0.00	79	0.05	60	0.05	85	0.03	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		87	0.24	48	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.04	78	0.03
Biret 1990		28	0.45	83	0.00	18	0.07	9	0.51	55	0.05	18	0.16
Blet 2003		65	0.35	50	0.00	72	0.05	64	0.05	76	0.03	66	0.04
Block 1995		70	0.32	84	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.04	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		66	0.34	38	0.00	49	0.05	65	0.05	85	0.03	70	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.51	19	0.01	15	0.07	29	0.34	54	0.05	28	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.23	89	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03
Bunin 1987		82	0.27	86	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	86	0.03	84	0.03
Bunin 1987b		84	0.27	90	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03
Chiu 1999		61	0.36	79	0.00	56	0.06	52	0.06	55	0.05	51	0.05
Cohen 1997		76	0.30	44	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	79	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		77	0.29	40	0.00	71	0.05	69	0.05	80	0.03	72	0.04
Csalog 1996		47	0.40	15	0.01	39	0.06	46	0.10	57	0.05	47	0.07
Czerny 1949		48	0.40	75	0.00	44	0.07	39	0.23	59	0.05	38	0.11
Czerny 1990		29	0.45	80	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.28	84	0.03	40	0.09
Duchoud 2007		41	0.43	18	0.01	13	0.07	33	0.29	35	0.19	15	0.23
Ezaki 2006		46	0.42	68	0.00	52	0.05	68	0.05	85	0.03	56	0.04
Falvay 1989		7	0.51	47	0.00	20	0.07	17	0.44	32	0.31	6	0.37
Farrell 1958		24	0.48	1	0.14	1	0.14	2	0.68	22	0.44	2	0.55
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.31	46	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	88	0.02	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		35	0.44	76	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.23	88	0.02	44	0.07
Fou 1978		22	0.48	51	0.00	31	0.08	27	0.37	82	0.03	35	0.11
Francois 1956		8	0.51	4	0.09	5	0.16	6	0.58	11	0.58	1	0.58
Friedman 1923		79	0.28	49	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		78	0.28	87	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1930		74	0.30	52	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		9	0.51	2	0.13	6	0.21	5	0.59	15	0.50	4	0.54
Garcia 2007b		6	0.52	6	0.06	7	0.22	7	0.55	37	0.23	8	0.36
Gierzod 1998		2	0.56	16	0.01	11	0.10	8	0.52	59	0.04	23	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		50	0.39	72	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	53	0.04	71	0.04
Groot 1988		31	0.45	70	0.00	10	0.10	11	0.49	29	0.25	9	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.46	35	0.00	25	0.07	26	0.38	76	0.04	32	0.12
Hatto 1993		59	0.37	39	0.00	59	0.10	47	0.10	63	0.04	50	0.06
Hatto 1997		56	0.37	58	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	58	0.05	54	0.05
Horowitz 1949		67	0.34	54	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		54	0.38	55	0.00	58	0.10	45	0.10	61	0.05	46	0.07
Kapell 1951		36	0.44	20	0.01	28	0.08	38	0.25	59	0.05	36	0.11
Kissin 1993		12	0.50	13	0.02	23	0.06	28	0.34	63	0.04	30	0.12
Kushner 1989		4	0.54	10	0.02	4	0.16	3	0.62	49	0.07	17	0.21
Luisada 1991		58	0.37	53	0.00	65	0.05	67	0.05	80	0.03	58	0.04
Lushtak 2004		39	0.43	37	0.00	19	0.09	16	0.45	44	0.12	16	0.23
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.42	34	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.02	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		52	0.38	28	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	45	0.09	45	0.07
Magin 1975		16	0.49	22	0.01	30	0.08	21	0.40	77	0.03	34	0.11
Michalowski 1933		64	0.35	61	0.00	67	0.06	55	0.06	70	0.04	53	0.05
Milkina 1970		19	0.49	77	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.42	80	0.04	26	0.13
Mohovich 1999		40	0.43	60	0.00	35	0.08	32	0.29	63	0.05	31	0.12
Moravec 1969		69	0.32	64	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	86	0.02	73	0.03
Morozova 2008		38	0.43	21	0.01	37	0.07	36	0.28	69	0.04	37	0.11
Neighaus 1950		34	0.45	23	0.01	32	0.08	37	0.25	79	0.04	39	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.31	36	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	67	0.04	63	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.49	7	0.05	8	0.19	10	0.50	41	0.13	13	0.25
Osinska 1989		3	0.55	5	0.07	3	0.18	4	0.60	45	0.13	11	0.28
Pachmann 1927		32	0.45	17	0.01	40	0.05	44	0.17	15	0.46	12	0.28
Paderewski 1930		20	0.49	9	0.02	12	0.09	12	0.48	6	0.60	3	0.54
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.45	65	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.28	67	0.04	33	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Poblocka 1999		60	0.37	73	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	83	0.03	60	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.38	81	0.00	45	0.09	43	0.18	58	0.04	42	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.35	12	0.02	38	0.08	31	0.30	60	0.05	29	0.12
Rangell 2001		18	0.49	66	0.00	27	0.09	22	0.40	31	0.33	7	0.36
Richter 1976		68	0.33	56	0.00	80	0.06	54	0.06	69	0.04	52	0.05
Rosen 1989		5	0.54	25	0.01	29	0.07	23	0.40	66	0.05	24	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		85	0.26	91	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	66	0.03	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.27	78	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	66	0.04	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.30	74	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	86	0.02	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.26	62	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.28	41	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		25	0.47	11	0.02	14	0.07	15	0.45	18	0.40	5	0.42
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.38	69	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	63	0.04	62	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.42	59	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	64	0.04	55	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.46	14	0.01	22	0.06	25	0.39	42	0.15	14	0.24
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.38	26	0.01	46	0.06	48	0.06	86	0.03	67	0.04
Shebanova 2002		11	0.50	24	0.01	9	0.10	14	0.47	68	0.05	19	0.15
Smith 1975		37	0.43	31	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	82	0.03	61	0.04
Sokolov 2002		45	0.42	33	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.21	84	0.03	41	0.08
Sztompka 1959		14	0.49	45	0.00	17	0.07	19	0.42	63	0.05	21	0.14
Tomsic 1995		21	0.48	29	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.32	30	0.36	10	0.34
Uninsky 1932		71	0.31	71	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	86	0.03	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		62	0.36	32	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.04	64	0.04
Wasowski 1980		43	0.42	43	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	88	0.03	59	0.04
Zak 1937		15	0.49	42	0.00	24	0.06	18	0.43	76	0.04	25	0.13
Zak 1951		13	0.50	8	0.04	21	0.07	13	0.48	73	0.04	20	0.14
Average		1	0.56	3	0.13	2	0.14	1	0.70	81	0.03	22	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.16	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.06	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	29	0.23	48	0.07
Random 3		89	-0.06	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	24	0.25	49	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).