Badura 1965

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		2	0.65	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.63	12	0.37	1	0.48
Anderszewski 2003		69	0.35	23	0.01	74	0.03	71	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.53	70	0.00	20	0.11	20	0.37	44	0.11	28	0.20
Bacha 2000		85	0.14	32	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Badura 1965		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Barbosa 1983		25	0.55	84	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.31	31	0.29	15	0.30
Biret 1990		59	0.41	57	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.03	81	0.03
Blet 2003		8	0.61	9	0.03	5	0.15	3	0.60	20	0.34	3	0.45
Block 1995		70	0.35	48	0.00	79	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Blumental 1952		66	0.37	46	0.00	65	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04	64	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.57	16	0.02	32	0.07	31	0.28	28	0.21	20	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.33	67	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	80	0.04	69	0.03
Bunin 1987		37	0.51	60	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.21	56	0.05	42	0.10
Bunin 1987b		36	0.51	66	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.21	55	0.05	39	0.10
Chiu 1999		62	0.40	27	0.01	58	0.04	51	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.04
Cohen 1997		84	0.17	49	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	66	0.03	80	0.03
Cortot 1951		18	0.57	5	0.04	21	0.09	21	0.36	23	0.32	12	0.34
Csalog 1996		68	0.36	63	0.00	59	0.04	56	0.04	34	0.25	40	0.10
Czerny 1949		6	0.61	85	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.32	41	0.13	27	0.20
Czerny 1990		4	0.64	75	0.00	12	0.08	9	0.50	44	0.09	24	0.21
Duchoud 2007		24	0.55	30	0.00	10	0.09	10	0.49	33	0.25	10	0.35
Ezaki 2006		1	0.66	8	0.03	4	0.15	4	0.59	30	0.18	13	0.33
Falvay 1989		46	0.49	43	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	57	0.04	56	0.04
Farrell 1958		75	0.28	68	0.00	83	0.02	81	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.37	38	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.05	63	0.04
Fliere 1977		7	0.61	37	0.00	11	0.08	8	0.53	43	0.12	18	0.25
Fou 1978		53	0.44	54	0.00	29	0.06	34	0.22	44	0.12	31	0.16
Francois 1956		34	0.52	58	0.00	47	0.04	53	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04
Friedman 1923		81	0.20	51	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	22	0.34	36	0.12
Friedman 1923b		83	0.20	86	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	25	0.32	38	0.11
Friedman 1930		65	0.39	29	0.00	56	0.04	58	0.04	44	0.08	50	0.06
Garcia 2007		86	0.13	76	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Garcia 2007b		89	0.05	77	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		48	0.47	36	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	70	0.03	78	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.54	65	0.00	27	0.06	24	0.32	43	0.10	30	0.18
Groot 1988		33	0.52	34	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.11	51	0.05	48	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.57	47	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.31	40	0.14	26	0.21
Hatto 1993		82	0.20	42	0.00	62	0.06	46	0.06	49	0.04	53	0.05
Hatto 1997		79	0.24	40	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.03	77	0.03
Horowitz 1949		57	0.42	64	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.03	74	0.03
Indjic 1988		80	0.21	69	0.00	60	0.04	52	0.04	47	0.05	61	0.04
Kapell 1951		56	0.43	87	0.00	64	0.04	54	0.04	54	0.05	57	0.04
Kissin 1993		23	0.55	31	0.00	28	0.06	26	0.31	43	0.14	22	0.21
Kushner 1989		13	0.60	17	0.02	9	0.08	2	0.60	17	0.36	2	0.46
Luisada 1991		73	0.32	74	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	74	0.03	68	0.03
Lushtak 2004		21	0.56	14	0.02	8	0.08	17	0.41	43	0.11	23	0.21
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.59	35	0.00	13	0.11	6	0.55	40	0.12	17	0.26
Magaloff 1978		49	0.47	53	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.03	71	0.03
Magin 1975		60	0.41	28	0.01	44	0.06	43	0.12	63	0.03	49	0.06
Michalowski 1933		64	0.39	91	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	60	0.04
Milkina 1970		52	0.45	82	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.04
Mohovich 1999		39	0.50	90	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	64	0.03	66	0.04
Moravec 1969		40	0.50	24	0.01	48	0.05	48	0.05	49	0.04	54	0.04
Morozova 2008		11	0.60	3	0.07	6	0.10	11	0.47	32	0.15	16	0.27
Neighaus 1950		45	0.49	83	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	83	0.02	83	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.26	72	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		31	0.53	52	0.00	40	0.08	32	0.24	46	0.08	34	0.14
Osinska 1989		9	0.60	39	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.38	36	0.16	19	0.25
Pachmann 1927		74	0.29	41	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	52	0.05	59	0.04
Paderewski 1930		43	0.49	22	0.01	51	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.03	75	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		22	0.56	59	0.00	35	0.07	28	0.31	34	0.16	21	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.41	71	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Poblocka 1999		41	0.49	26	0.01	39	0.08	35	0.22	53	0.04	43	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.49	80	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	56	0.04	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.51	20	0.01	33	0.09	33	0.22	51	0.04	44	0.09
Rangell 2001		47	0.48	12	0.02	14	0.07	36	0.22	33	0.20	25	0.21
Richter 1976		55	0.44	6	0.04	25	0.07	39	0.16	36	0.11	35	0.13
Rosen 1989		54	0.44	15	0.02	26	0.06	40	0.15	60	0.04	46	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.55	10	0.03	7	0.07	16	0.41	18	0.43	6	0.42
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.33	55	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	49	0.05	62	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.26	62	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	58	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		29	0.53	45	0.00	16	0.07	18	0.40	16	0.39	8	0.39
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.26	88	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	52	0.05	82	0.03
Rossi 2007		63	0.39	81	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.03	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.12	33	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	63	0.04	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		58	0.41	50	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.04	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.46	21	0.01	30	0.06	30	0.28	24	0.41	11	0.34
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.54	44	0.00	36	0.08	29	0.29	61	0.04	37	0.11
Shebanova 2002		42	0.49	56	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.13	51	0.06	45	0.09
Smith 1975		10	0.60	19	0.01	17	0.08	14	0.41	49	0.05	33	0.14
Sokolov 2002		15	0.58	7	0.03	18	0.08	15	0.41	29	0.33	9	0.37
Sztompka 1959		16	0.57	13	0.02	23	0.09	22	0.33	31	0.30	14	0.31
Tomsic 1995		17	0.57	4	0.06	3	0.12	7	0.54	22	0.33	5	0.42
Uninsky 1932		5	0.63	25	0.01	15	0.07	12	0.44	20	0.42	4	0.43
Uninsky 1971		12	0.60	11	0.03	19	0.10	13	0.42	28	0.36	7	0.39
Wasowski 1980		30	0.53	18	0.01	42	0.06	41	0.15	23	0.24	29	0.19
Zak 1937		50	0.46	61	0.00	55	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.06	51	0.05
Zak 1951		35	0.51	73	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	60	0.05	47	0.07
Average		3	0.65	2	0.09	2	0.14	5	0.57	54	0.04	32	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.06	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	31	0.20	65	0.04
Random 2		88	0.06	89	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	2	0.50	41	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.01	79	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	35	0.15	52	0.05

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).