Uninsky 1932

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	0.65	78	0.00	11	0.10	13	0.52	29	0.39	16	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.52	37	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	64	0.04	58	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.53	27	0.00	35	0.08	37	0.33	34	0.24	27	0.28
Bacha 2000		70	0.43	74	0.00	61	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04	61	0.04
Badura 1965		30	0.55	16	0.00	16	0.10	38	0.30	21	0.42	21	0.35
Barbosa 1983		64	0.45	13	0.01	53	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.06	54	0.06
Biret 1990		43	0.52	33	0.00	37	0.09	35	0.34	69	0.04	48	0.12
Blet 2003		50	0.50	53	0.00	63	0.03	81	0.03	47	0.07	59	0.05
Block 1995		54	0.49	49	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.05	72	0.04
Blumental 1952		49	0.50	39	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	84	0.03	73	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		14	0.61	47	0.00	13	0.11	10	0.55	28	0.44	10	0.49
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.45	31	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	60	0.05	62	0.04
Bunin 1987		62	0.46	45	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	26	0.39	47	0.12
Bunin 1987b		66	0.45	60	0.00	57	0.06	51	0.06	26	0.39	40	0.15
Chiu 1999		63	0.46	79	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.29	75	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.05	75	0.04
Cortot 1951		33	0.54	29	0.00	50	0.04	60	0.04	17	0.49	45	0.14
Csalog 1996		78	0.39	54	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04
Czerny 1949		7	0.65	7	0.01	6	0.23	6	0.59	17	0.54	7	0.56
Czerny 1990		25	0.58	40	0.00	26	0.08	19	0.47	47	0.07	36	0.18
Duchoud 2007		81	0.38	52	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	70	0.04
Ezaki 2006		18	0.59	36	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.43	33	0.30	19	0.36
Falvay 1989		84	0.35	81	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Farrell 1958		73	0.41	76	0.00	72	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.04	67	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		40	0.52	67	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	30	0.34	44	0.14
Fliere 1977		10	0.64	46	0.00	10	0.14	9	0.55	39	0.18	24	0.31
Fou 1978		20	0.59	34	0.00	24	0.07	27	0.42	38	0.18	30	0.27
Francois 1956		72	0.42	57	0.00	71	0.04	78	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.04
Friedman 1923		35	0.53	85	0.00	45	0.09	44	0.18	29	0.37	33	0.26
Friedman 1923b		34	0.54	86	0.00	40	0.09	36	0.33	26	0.42	18	0.37
Friedman 1930		52	0.50	90	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	35	0.30	46	0.13
Garcia 2007		56	0.48	91	0.00	60	0.04	77	0.04	54	0.05	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		31	0.54	71	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.34	27	0.35	22	0.34
Gierzod 1998		15	0.61	4	0.02	8	0.19	8	0.57	31	0.38	13	0.47
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.51	18	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.03	76	0.04
Groot 1988		77	0.39	55	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.04	79	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.66	6	0.01	3	0.16	3	0.68	17	0.58	2	0.63
Hatto 1993		53	0.50	82	0.00	19	0.10	21	0.46	42	0.18	25	0.29
Hatto 1997		45	0.51	25	0.00	29	0.07	25	0.45	39	0.16	31	0.27
Horowitz 1949		26	0.58	30	0.00	36	0.08	39	0.28	13	0.51	17	0.38
Indjic 1988		46	0.51	87	0.00	30	0.13	24	0.45	42	0.17	26	0.28
Kapell 1951		19	0.59	68	0.00	20	0.10	22	0.46	33	0.24	23	0.33
Kissin 1993		5	0.66	22	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.60	18	0.58	3	0.59
Kushner 1989		44	0.52	72	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05	57	0.05
Luisada 1991		22	0.58	32	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.35	53	0.06	42	0.14
Lushtak 2004		67	0.44	50	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	87	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.57	2	0.07	4	0.14	17	0.48	12	0.48	11	0.48
Magaloff 1978		60	0.46	19	0.00	59	0.05	55	0.05	75	0.04	65	0.04
Magin 1975		13	0.62	26	0.00	23	0.07	20	0.47	36	0.27	20	0.36
Michalowski 1933		21	0.58	17	0.00	15	0.12	14	0.51	6	0.60	8	0.55
Milkina 1970		23	0.58	23	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.42	63	0.05	43	0.14
Mohovich 1999		57	0.47	69	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.04	74	0.04
Moravec 1969		36	0.53	3	0.05	22	0.09	45	0.16	19	0.46	28	0.27
Morozova 2008		12	0.62	5	0.02	18	0.11	16	0.49	17	0.44	14	0.46
Neighaus 1950		39	0.53	83	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.21	37	0.16	37	0.18
Niedzielski 1931		16	0.61	43	0.00	12	0.11	15	0.49	4	0.53	9	0.51
Ohlsson 1999		59	0.47	44	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.25	58	0.05	49	0.11
Osinska 1989		42	0.52	58	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.19	69	0.04	51	0.09
Pachmann 1927		82	0.38	77	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.03	85	0.03
Paderewski 1930		76	0.40	88	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.03	84	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.50	42	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	55	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		87	0.31	63	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.04	82	0.03
Poblocka 1999		9	0.65	15	0.00	14	0.11	12	0.54	30	0.41	12	0.47
Rabcewiczowa 1932		27	0.57	9	0.01	31	0.07	32	0.36	34	0.21	29	0.27
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.56	21	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.38	47	0.07	38	0.16
Rangell 2001		75	0.40	61	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	58	0.05	77	0.04
Richter 1976		11	0.64	11	0.01	17	0.12	11	0.54	11	0.58	6	0.56
Rosen 1989		48	0.50	80	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	67	0.05	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.43	64	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.38	59	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	45	0.13	52	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.36	65	0.00	82	0.04	76	0.04	44	0.12	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.38	35	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	60	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.34	56	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	55	0.05	78	0.04
Rossi 2007		74	0.40	48	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	78	0.04	63	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		58	0.47	12	0.01	64	0.05	58	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		68	0.43	24	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		71	0.42	28	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.05	69	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		4	0.66	14	0.01	5	0.16	7	0.59	15	0.55	5	0.57
Shebanova 2002		24	0.58	84	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.46	43	0.13	34	0.24
Smith 1975		55	0.48	10	0.01	62	0.05	57	0.05	63	0.04	66	0.04
Sokolov 2002		61	0.46	38	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.22	32	0.24	35	0.23
Sztompka 1959		6	0.66	8	0.01	9	0.20	4	0.61	18	0.53	4	0.57
Tomsic 1995		86	0.33	73	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	71	0.05	83	0.03
Uninsky 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1971		1	0.81	1	0.69	1	0.68	1	0.85	1	0.83	1	0.84
Wasowski 1980		17	0.60	62	0.00	21	0.10	18	0.48	25	0.42	15	0.45
Zak 1937		32	0.54	89	0.00	38	0.09	29	0.39	59	0.06	39	0.15
Zak 1951		37	0.53	70	0.00	39	0.09	31	0.37	56	0.06	41	0.15
Average		2	0.71	20	0.00	2	0.28	2	0.74	47	0.09	32	0.26
Random 1		91	-0.08	51	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	55	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.01	41	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	6	0.49	50	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.08	66	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.11	88	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).