Harasiewicz 1955

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		49	0.45	75	0.00	45	0.04	54	0.04	33	0.16	69	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.49	6	0.03	10	0.11	9	0.42	9	0.52	9	0.47
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.53	24	0.01	14	0.06	10	0.40	19	0.40	16	0.40
Bacha 2000		81	0.26	48	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	29	0.33	57	0.10
Badura 1965		47	0.46	61	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	30	0.26	64	0.09
Barbosa 1983		46	0.46	62	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	38	0.24	61	0.10
Biret 1990		67	0.36	69	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	31	0.24	70	0.08
Blet 2003		42	0.47	59	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	29	0.29	48	0.12
Block 1995		13	0.54	10	0.02	12	0.06	16	0.37	3	0.60	10	0.47
Blumental 1952		80	0.30	64	0.00	75	0.02	87	0.02	47	0.05	87	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		29	0.50	51	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.23	9	0.58	19	0.37
Brailowsky 1960		34	0.49	79	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	14	0.43	41	0.21
Bunin 1987		16	0.53	84	0.00	15	0.06	14	0.38	12	0.46	13	0.42
Bunin 1987b		17	0.53	36	0.00	16	0.07	15	0.38	12	0.46	12	0.42
Chiu 1999		37	0.48	39	0.00	70	0.04	52	0.04	43	0.13	71	0.07
Cohen 1997		78	0.30	38	0.00	82	0.04	60	0.04	46	0.06	79	0.05
Cortot 1951		69	0.35	46	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	38	0.16	75	0.07
Csalog 1996		86	0.18	56	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	56	0.06	83	0.04
Czerny 1949		33	0.49	49	0.00	27	0.05	26	0.26	15	0.56	17	0.38
Czerny 1990		32	0.50	68	0.00	35	0.06	31	0.24	23	0.28	34	0.26
Duchoud 2007		61	0.39	80	0.00	60	0.04	50	0.04	44	0.09	77	0.06
Ezaki 2006		8	0.56	60	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.33	27	0.29	30	0.31
Falvay 1989		25	0.52	57	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.20	19	0.32	36	0.25
Farrell 1958		74	0.33	86	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	31	0.25	63	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		76	0.32	83	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	34	0.17	74	0.07
Fliere 1977		7	0.56	22	0.01	21	0.07	18	0.35	23	0.37	20	0.36
Fou 1978		20	0.53	26	0.01	20	0.07	21	0.32	26	0.38	22	0.35
Francois 1956		28	0.51	32	0.00	19	0.07	25	0.26	14	0.44	28	0.34
Friedman 1923		85	0.21	42	0.00	87	0.04	58	0.04	53	0.06	80	0.05
Friedman 1923b		84	0.22	72	0.00	86	0.04	57	0.04	60	0.05	84	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.40	28	0.01	71	0.03	72	0.03	36	0.21	68	0.08
Garcia 2007		71	0.34	15	0.01	73	0.03	70	0.03	7	0.64	45	0.14
Garcia 2007b		82	0.26	77	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	49	0.05	85	0.04
Gierzod 1998		53	0.43	81	0.00	48	0.05	47	0.05	19	0.28	49	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.53	19	0.01	11	0.08	11	0.39	13	0.44	14	0.41
Groot 1988		19	0.53	44	0.00	17	0.07	20	0.32	19	0.38	24	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		75	0.33	33	0.00	50	0.03	67	0.03	25	0.28	65	0.09
Hatto 1997		77	0.30	27	0.01	28	0.06	44	0.10	24	0.29	43	0.17
Horowitz 1949		39	0.48	18	0.01	37	0.06	37	0.18	13	0.39	33	0.26
Indjic 1988		79	0.30	70	0.00	53	0.04	64	0.04	25	0.27	60	0.10
Kapell 1951		44	0.47	21	0.01	23	0.06	33	0.23	11	0.49	26	0.34
Kissin 1993		26	0.51	17	0.01	31	0.06	27	0.24	25	0.32	32	0.28
Kushner 1989		36	0.49	74	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.18	32	0.22	42	0.20
Luisada 1991		41	0.47	52	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	30	0.28	52	0.11
Lushtak 2004		11	0.55	47	0.00	29	0.05	22	0.31	19	0.43	18	0.37
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.59	1	0.28	1	0.27	2	0.56	3	0.60	2	0.58
Magaloff 1978		22	0.53	54	0.00	7	0.10	13	0.38	15	0.35	21	0.36
Magin 1975		27	0.51	76	0.00	25	0.06	23	0.29	12	0.41	25	0.34
Michalowski 1933		51	0.43	43	0.00	58	0.04	53	0.04	34	0.26	59	0.10
Milkina 1970		45	0.46	37	0.00	30	0.05	30	0.24	8	0.46	29	0.33
Mohovich 1999		6	0.57	20	0.01	9	0.14	6	0.46	8	0.59	6	0.52
Moravec 1969		56	0.41	40	0.00	51	0.04	62	0.04	26	0.25	58	0.10
Morozova 2008		21	0.53	45	0.00	38	0.04	40	0.14	50	0.05	67	0.08
Neighaus 1950		4	0.58	2	0.09	2	0.19	1	0.56	2	0.65	1	0.60
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.25	53	0.00	83	0.03	68	0.03	29	0.17	72	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		52	0.43	5	0.03	52	0.04	49	0.04	41	0.12	73	0.07
Osinska 1989		31	0.50	8	0.02	41	0.04	35	0.19	19	0.33	35	0.25
Pachmann 1927		62	0.38	65	0.00	57	0.05	45	0.05	25	0.34	46	0.13
Paderewski 1930		55	0.41	35	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	35	0.17	66	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		2	0.63	13	0.02	8	0.12	8	0.42	5	0.62	7	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		30	0.50	87	0.00	43	0.06	39	0.16	15	0.39	37	0.25
Poblocka 1999		70	0.35	71	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	46	0.05	81	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.44	29	0.01	49	0.04	55	0.04	16	0.50	44	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		40	0.48	58	0.00	26	0.08	28	0.24	19	0.39	31	0.31
Rangell 2001		54	0.41	30	0.01	42	0.05	42	0.13	16	0.37	40	0.22
Richter 1976		10	0.55	9	0.02	13	0.06	17	0.36	4	0.45	15	0.40
Rosen 1989		38	0.48	50	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.14	22	0.35	39	0.22
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.37	11	0.02	63	0.04	66	0.04	28	0.36	50	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.39	89	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	18	0.44	54	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		68	0.36	73	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	17	0.42	56	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		64	0.37	16	0.01	62	0.03	76	0.03	25	0.33	62	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.33	88	0.00	68	0.04	51	0.04	17	0.36	51	0.12
Rossi 2007		57	0.41	66	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	12	0.37	53	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.15	41	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	45	0.06	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.37	14	0.02	55	0.04	63	0.04	38	0.14	76	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		72	0.34	78	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	28	0.31	55	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		9	0.55	34	0.00	34	0.05	29	0.24	7	0.52	23	0.35
Shebanova 2002		59	0.39	55	0.00	76	0.02	86	0.02	54	0.06	86	0.03
Smith 1975		1	0.66	4	0.08	3	0.15	3	0.52	5	0.57	3	0.54
Sokolov 2002		12	0.55	7	0.03	6	0.09	4	0.49	2	0.56	5	0.52
Sztompka 1959		48	0.46	63	0.00	59	0.05	46	0.05	31	0.28	47	0.12
Tomsic 1995		5	0.58	12	0.02	5	0.12	7	0.45	4	0.58	8	0.51
Uninsky 1932		14	0.54	25	0.01	24	0.06	24	0.27	14	0.43	27	0.34
Uninsky 1971		24	0.52	3	0.08	4	0.13	5	0.47	5	0.61	4	0.54
Wasowski 1980		66	0.36	31	0.01	72	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.07	78	0.05
Zak 1937		43	0.47	67	0.00	36	0.06	38	0.17	20	0.38	38	0.25
Zak 1951		15	0.54	23	0.01	18	0.06	12	0.38	9	0.52	11	0.44
Random 1		90	-0.07	82	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	68	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.07	90	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	81	0.02	88	0.02
Random 3		88	-0.07	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	78	0.02	90	0.01

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).