Shebanova 2002

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		7	0.71	8	0.01	5	0.15	7	0.61	4	0.63	7	0.62
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.59	59	0.00	59	0.04	73	0.04	42	0.22	74	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		34	0.61	52	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.37	7	0.57	24	0.46
Bacha 2000		75	0.48	66	0.00	75	0.04	71	0.04	36	0.17	75	0.08
Badura 1965		57	0.55	70	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	22	0.42	65	0.13
Barbosa 1983		74	0.49	44	0.00	71	0.05	62	0.05	38	0.18	73	0.09
Biret 1990		30	0.62	49	0.00	32	0.06	35	0.26	17	0.43	36	0.33
Blet 2003		78	0.48	67	0.00	78	0.07	47	0.07	59	0.05	82	0.06
Block 1995		53	0.56	41	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	8	0.55	42	0.26
Blumental 1952		59	0.54	21	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	30	0.23	68	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.64	81	0.00	25	0.08	28	0.31	29	0.42	29	0.36
Brailowsky 1960		72	0.50	71	0.00	77	0.06	51	0.06	36	0.27	63	0.13
Bunin 1987		73	0.50	20	0.00	67	0.05	58	0.05	8	0.50	49	0.16
Bunin 1987b		76	0.48	60	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	12	0.48	54	0.15
Chiu 1999		50	0.57	13	0.01	44	0.06	45	0.11	2	0.54	44	0.24
Cohen 1997		88	0.35	84	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		69	0.51	45	0.00	76	0.05	63	0.05	24	0.44	59	0.15
Csalog 1996		77	0.48	87	0.00	66	0.05	53	0.05	29	0.29	66	0.12
Czerny 1949		26	0.63	30	0.00	33	0.06	25	0.36	31	0.40	28	0.38
Czerny 1990		14	0.66	18	0.00	24	0.08	29	0.30	29	0.38	34	0.34
Duchoud 2007		58	0.54	31	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	3	0.65	47	0.18
Ezaki 2006		36	0.60	61	0.00	58	0.04	78	0.04	45	0.12	78	0.07
Falvay 1989		47	0.57	14	0.01	54	0.04	75	0.04	34	0.30	67	0.11
Farrell 1958		45	0.58	38	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.21	26	0.41	40	0.29
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.54	55	0.00	56	0.04	77	0.04	17	0.44	64	0.13
Fliere 1977		8	0.71	36	0.00	4	0.13	6	0.61	5	0.54	10	0.57
Fou 1978		51	0.57	68	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	40	0.17	71	0.09
Francois 1956		46	0.58	43	0.00	57	0.04	79	0.04	5	0.62	51	0.16
Friedman 1923		54	0.55	47	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.45	60	0.15
Friedman 1923b		55	0.55	89	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	25	0.44	57	0.15
Friedman 1930		37	0.59	53	0.00	52	0.06	50	0.06	9	0.55	46	0.18
Garcia 2007		66	0.52	82	0.00	64	0.06	49	0.06	19	0.48	48	0.17
Garcia 2007b		42	0.59	48	0.00	34	0.05	36	0.25	10	0.53	30	0.36
Gierzod 1998		2	0.76	3	0.03	2	0.47	2	0.74	5	0.71	2	0.72
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.61	56	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	15	0.52	50	0.16
Groot 1988		52	0.57	72	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.32	6	0.48	27	0.39
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.63	19	0.00	29	0.08	31	0.30	31	0.40	32	0.35
Hatto 1993		31	0.62	24	0.00	15	0.15	14	0.52	10	0.51	16	0.51
Hatto 1997		28	0.62	33	0.00	16	0.11	16	0.50	11	0.50	20	0.50
Horowitz 1949		68	0.52	73	0.00	70	0.05	66	0.05	20	0.48	56	0.15
Indjic 1988		27	0.63	22	0.00	14	0.11	13	0.53	9	0.52	15	0.52
Kapell 1951		43	0.58	77	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	43	0.14	72	0.09
Kissin 1993		9	0.71	11	0.01	7	0.15	4	0.62	5	0.69	4	0.65
Kushner 1989		3	0.72	4	0.02	9	0.16	8	0.57	8	0.63	9	0.60
Luisada 1991		35	0.61	34	0.00	36	0.07	38	0.23	13	0.47	35	0.33
Lushtak 2004		17	0.65	6	0.02	17	0.14	11	0.54	4	0.70	8	0.61
Malcuzynski 1961		62	0.54	46	0.00	74	0.08	46	0.08	65	0.04	81	0.06
Magaloff 1978		38	0.59	5	0.02	41	0.07	41	0.15	9	0.46	41	0.26
Magin 1975		19	0.65	75	0.00	13	0.10	19	0.46	9	0.54	17	0.50
Michalowski 1933		70	0.51	90	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	13	0.48	62	0.14
Milkina 1970		20	0.64	50	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.27	34	0.33	38	0.30
Mohovich 1999		23	0.63	10	0.01	28	0.08	24	0.37	15	0.60	23	0.47
Moravec 1969		81	0.44	39	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.05	84	0.04
Morozova 2008		22	0.63	2	0.04	22	0.10	22	0.37	11	0.50	25	0.43
Neighaus 1950		6	0.71	27	0.00	8	0.16	9	0.57	3	0.71	5	0.64
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.55	69	0.00	51	0.05	67	0.05	18	0.45	53	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		4	0.72	9	0.01	3	0.29	3	0.67	2	0.75	3	0.71
Osinska 1989		11	0.67	12	0.01	11	0.13	12	0.54	12	0.61	11	0.57
Pachmann 1927		79	0.45	37	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	37	0.22	77	0.08
Paderewski 1930		84	0.41	91	0.00	79	0.04	80	0.04	39	0.15	76	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.61	17	0.01	26	0.09	26	0.34	2	0.65	22	0.47
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.50	64	0.00	69	0.05	68	0.05	14	0.47	52	0.15
Poblocka 1999		10	0.69	42	0.00	10	0.14	10	0.54	7	0.61	12	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		39	0.59	62	0.00	35	0.06	37	0.24	8	0.52	31	0.35
Rachmaninoff 1923		60	0.54	16	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.27	22	0.32	39	0.29
Rangell 2001		67	0.52	23	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	14	0.46	58	0.15
Richter 1976		64	0.53	57	0.00	72	0.05	65	0.05	31	0.42	61	0.14
Rosen 1989		12	0.67	32	0.00	12	0.10	15	0.50	10	0.60	14	0.55
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.43	76	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	45	0.10	83	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.40	78	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	56	0.06	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.42	83	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	42	0.16	79	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.44	79	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	40	0.17	80	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.38	88	0.00	88	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.05	86	0.04
Rossi 2007		85	0.40	63	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.54	15	0.01	53	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.27	70	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.57	7	0.01	40	0.06	40	0.18	12	0.55	37	0.31
Rubinstein 1966		29	0.62	58	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.26	25	0.45	33	0.34
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.66	28	0.00	19	0.14	17	0.48	3	0.64	13	0.55
Shebanova 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Smith 1975		48	0.57	65	0.00	61	0.04	74	0.04	28	0.27	69	0.10
Sokolov 2002		40	0.59	26	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	15	0.43	43	0.25
Sztompka 1959		5	0.72	51	0.00	6	0.14	5	0.62	5	0.65	6	0.63
Tomsic 1995		65	0.53	35	0.00	73	0.05	52	0.05	23	0.46	55	0.15
Uninsky 1932		44	0.58	54	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.13	23	0.46	45	0.24
Uninsky 1971		16	0.65	29	0.00	21	0.13	20	0.45	17	0.56	19	0.50
Wasowski 1980		25	0.63	25	0.00	27	0.08	30	0.30	6	0.58	26	0.42
Zak 1937		13	0.67	40	0.00	18	0.14	18	0.46	11	0.54	18	0.50
Zak 1951		18	0.65	74	0.00	20	0.13	21	0.44	13	0.52	21	0.48
Average		1	0.81	1	0.70	1	0.70	1	0.85	6	0.63	1	0.73
Random 1		91	-0.15	80	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.04	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	58	0.04	87	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.12	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.04	90	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).